1920-03-08

THE LATE LIEUTENANT-COLONEL G. H.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that a Message has been received from the Senate acquainting this House that the Honourable Messieurs Bradbury, Casgrain, Foster and Pope have been appointed a special committee to determine the form of the memorial to be erected in the Parliament Buildings to the late Lieutenant-Colonel George Harold Baker, M.P for Broine, he being the only member of Parliament who lost'his life on the field of battle, and inviting this House to appoint a like committee to act jointly with a committee of the Senate.


Right Hon.   S@: '
That the following Members of Parliament, to wit: Sir Sam Hughes, Messrs. Boivin, Kay and Griesbach, be appointed a Special Committee to confer and act with a like Committee of the Senate in determining the form of the Memorial to be erected in the Parliament Buildings to the late Lieutenant-Colonel Baker, M.P. for Brome, who lost his life on the field of battle; and that a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours therewith.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion can only be entertained by unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): I would call the attention of the Government to a press despatch of March 5 to the effect that gold coin valued at approximately $3,000,000 has been shipped to New York from Canada for the account of the Canadian Government, and that this is understood to be the forerunner of further shipments. I should like to know if this report is correct, and whether, if further shipments are contemplated, they are to be made for the purpose Of relieving the exchange situation between Canada and the United States.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: It is quite correct that there is a movement of some gold from Ottawa to New York. It is being shipped in payment of some Canadian obligations payable in New York. This method of meeting our obligations was adopted for the reason that otherwise, in view of the exchange situation, there would have been a serious expense to the country. When shipping in gold, the expense is only one-tenth of one per cent; being our actual cost of transport. As against, therefore, an exchange ranging from 13 to 17, which on a large payment would constitute a very serious loss, we are getting rid of our obligations in New York for one-tenth of one per cent and at the same time keeping within our statutory gold reserve. The movement is not made for the purpose of correcting the exchange but simply for the purpose of discharging our obligations in that market.
.THE GOVERNOR GENERAL'S SPEECH.



ADDRESS IN REPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of the motion of Mr. Hume Cronyn for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the proposed' amendment of the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie-King thereto, resumed from Friday, March 5.
Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, when I retired from the Government in August last it was my intention for the reasons given in my letter of resignation, to resign my seat in this House. I refrained from doing so at the request of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), and also of many prominent citizens of my constituency of both political parties. I am glad that I followed that course, because the retention of my seat affords me the opportunity of making answer to questions which may arise touching the fiscal policy of the Government and the administration of the public finances during my period of office.
To those who have referred in terms of commendation to the part I took in the Administration I am deeply grateful. Some criticisms which have been passed in the course of this debate I shall deal with, I hope effectually, before I take my seat. While I am upon my feet I should like to speak, and I hope at not too great length, to the amendment which has been proposed by the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King).
May I be permitted a personal digression? I was not in the House at the close of the last session, and consequently did not have the opportunity, which I now most earnestly embrace, of extending my congratulations to my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mackenzie King) upon his appointment to the eminent position' of head of the Liberal party and its leader in this House. I do so with the greater pleasure because he and I have been old personal friends. Our friendship is of such long standing that I do not like to refer to it for fear it should appear that he and I are growing old. He is a graduate of the same university as I, and I think of the same year. His father was my preceptor in law, a man for whom in his lifetime I always cherished the highest esteem and regard, and whom-1 bear now in most affectionate remembrance. While our political differences arising from the views which we hold, and doubtless will continue to hold on public questions are not likely to be few or narrow, I assure the hon. leader of the Op- [DOT] position of a goodly measure of my goodwill and interest in his future career.
Being solicitous as I am for his making a reasonable success in public life," I do not like to see him make initial mistakes. As age is reckoned in politics, my hon. friend is young-not too young. I consider it an advantage in a public man, in no matter what position, or how high that position

fnay be, to be comparatively young because young men profit by their mistakes and old men never do. My hon. friend will recall the criticism which was passed upon the right hon. Mr. Gladstone, I think by Lord Salisbury. Lord Salisbury isaid that Mr. Gladstone was an old man in a hurry. There is some excuse for an old man being in a hurry because he is near the end of his years politically and physically, but there is not the same excuse for a young man being in a hurry, and that brings me to the amendment which has been moved by the leader of the Opposition, and wliich seems to me upon the face of it to indicate that my hon. friend is in a hurry. He says he wants an election. He says to the Government, in so many words:	You are incompetent; you are disorganized; your mandate has expired; your Prime Minister is sick and absent from his duties; this is not a representative Parliament; I challenge the Government to an election.
That is a bold defy on the face of it. My hon. friend says he is in earnest about it. But when he uses the word "earnest" I think he must use it in the Pickwickian sense. If I believed that my hon. friend was in earnest in moving this amendment, and that he really desired an election, I should be filled with admiration for his temerity because as I estimate public opinion in this country there is nothing in an election for the hon. gentleman or his followers. But the hon. gentleman says he wants an election.
An hori. MEMBER: Hear, hear.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: weight. Then, remember that supposing that not a single vote of the soldiers overseas had been polled the result would not have been essentially different. The individual majorities were too large to make a difference, they ran into the thousands where in ordinary times they would run into hundreds only. And even if you eliminate every woman's vote the result would have been the same. The fact is that at the last general election public opinion in Canada was overwhelming behind the determination of the Prime Minister, and the members of his Government, and the candidates throughout the country, to command the entire resources of the Dominion and place them behind our military effort overseas.
There never was a more decisive result, and there never was a clearer mandate, and in that connection let me say this: That if any one will take the trouble to read the manifesto of the Prime Minister at the time of that election he will find that the mandate was not only for the war, but it was also to deal with the problems arising out of the war. We have many of those problems with us to-day and we shall have them for years to come. I should consider that the Government had entirely misinterpreted the verdict of the people at the last election if they considered for one moment, and I know they are not, a dissolution and an appeal to the country at this time.
Then the contention is advanced that the Government has been incompetent. Well, if I had not been used to political debates during the past eight years, if I thought that that charge was put forward seriously and not as a mere partisan contention, I would feel like dismissing it with contempt. The old Conservative Government under Sir Robert Borden, the Union Government that succeeded that Government under Sir Robert incompetent! Mr. Speaker, we are too close to this war and its events to realize policies and measures in their true light; , but I say that when the history of the war is written and when the bearing of policies and. actions are seen in truer proportion than they are to-day, it will be the verdict that no Prime Minister ever deserved more of Canada than did Sir Robert Borden, and that no Government has been more efficient or anything like as efficient, as the Government under him. And, Sir, when I say that I do not except even the Fathers of Confederation.	[DOT]
Why, Mr. Speaker, looking back over the five years and the tempest through which the world has passed and through which we have passed, and considering the mighty

effort that we in this country put forth under the direction and supervision and on the initiative of the Government, was there ever a more glorious tradition upon which to found the enduring edifice of a political party than the work of the last five years? Take the old Conservatives, and the Liberals who joined them at the crisis of the war- I do not believe there ever was a group of men who could look back to a greater or nobler tradition of patriotic and efficient service.
I do not intend to speak of the achievements of the Government during the war. That has been most admirably done in this debate by a much more competent and eloquent man than I-I allude to the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) and I congratulate him upon his occupying that elevated position. The Government in-"this House is not lacking in able leadership anyway. Why, gentlemen, the Acting Prime Minister was eloquent before some of us could speak at all.
I purpose, Mr. Speaker, to say a word,, but only in general terms, with regard to what the Government has accomplished since the Armistice, because the criticism is directed against the Government as it is to-day and not so much agaipst the Government as it was during the war. Well, look back to the Armistice of 1918, and consider the measures that have been taken since to promote prosperity and to stabilize industry,-and consider also the successful loans which have been made. Do you know of any country, Mr. Speaker, that is in better case than Canada to-day? Social unrest, industrial unrest-how do we compare with the other countries of the world; how do we compare with Great Britain, with France,-even with the United States, which, having regard to her population and resources put forth only a tithe of the effort of Canada and where to-day the relations between Capital and Labour, between rich and poor, are such as to cause the gravest apprehension among thinking men of the Republic?
What do we find in 'Canada? A certain-amount of unrest undoubtedly-a considerable part of it psychological. Does anybody suppose that a nation can go through the mighty strain of a war, with all its tragic-incidents, bereavements and poignant suffering without a nervous reaction? But take the situation in Canada and contrast it with that which exists in any other bel-ligerant country-I care not which you select-and we have the best position in the world to-day. Mr. Speaker, we all re-

member Bairnsfather's cartoon, and I say that if any one in this House or in this country thinks that he knows of a "a better 'ole " than Canada, why, let him go to it;-he will soon be disillusionized.
Now, is the Government to get no credit for all this? Supposing instead of this situation which I have pictured-and not overstated-supposing that you had commercial depression, unemployment, and civil disorders, what attitude would my good friends opposite be taking with regard to the Government? Why, they would visit all the blame upon the Government, rightly or wrongly; there is no doubt about that. Well, is the Government to get no credit for the opposite condition of things? I say that this Government is " carrying on " most capably at the present time, and I say further that no Government in any selfgoverning country has a more creditable record than the Government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, not only during the war but since the Armistice, and down to the present moment.
What weighty question is there, Mr. Speaker, that cannot be dealt with by the Government of to-day and by this House? Are there problems more weighty, more intricate, more difficult of solution, than those which arose during the war? There could not be. There are difficult problems, but they are not as difficult and they are not as many as those which were dealt with successfully during the war. It is said that ihe Government is disorganized, that some of its members have retired. Well, that is not an extraordinary thing. Mr. Speaker, in how many countries have ministers holding important portfolios retained, them through the entire war? How many have broken down with the responsibility-continuous, obsessive, the immense responsibility of war which puts a man always to the test for there is no side-stepping; questions must be faced and dealt with, and there is no relief or relaxation. Survey the Governments of the Overseas Dominions and of Great Britain and of France, and how many ministers do you find in office now who ware in office when the war broke out in 1914? I shall not labour the point.; the House knows the situation as well as I.
, But if the Government is " carrying on " capably to-day, and has carried on capably since the Armistice, and has lost so many members, then, Mr. Speaker, what must we say of the excellence of the Government of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden when it could lose so many capable members and still be as efficient as it is to day? You all remember the story of'Abraham Lincoln. He had great confidence in General Grant, who was the most successful General of the Northern armies, and who finally brought the Civil War to a conclusion. But General Grant had enemies and they informed the president that General Grant was a heavy drinker. The slow, wise Lincoln said: " What brand of whiskey does he drink; I want it for the rest of my Generals." What brand of men had the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden during the war if he can afford to lose so many and still put up such a front bench as we see to-day?
Now, Mr. Speaker, in my view the great need in this country to-day, politically speaking, is stability of administration. The people do not want an election. What they want is to be assured that this Administration will carry on the affairs of Government and leave them to give attention to their own private and business affairs. Our people do not want an election that will throw the entire country into turmoil. My hon. friend, the leader of the Opposition, says-and I put forward his contention; it is not mine-" Let us have an election." Now, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that neither he nor those who follow him would have any chance whatever on an appeal to the country. He does not want the Government or those on this side of the House to be returned.' Then what does he want? He must desire to have introduced the " group " system in this House.
There is always a national objection, and a serious one, to an election held after a great war and while the public mind is disturbed, and I will tell you Why. In the first place, a war makes great demands upon classes as such and upon groups as such. You call upon the farmers; you call upon the manufacturers; you call upon labour; you call upon all the classes of the community by name, and it makes them selfconscious. There is a clas(s-consciousness developed in time of war that is not developed in time of peace. More than that, every class and every group has its problems, its difficulties its grievances; and the result is that if you have an election immediately following a war you do not get what you ought to get in a general election-you do not get a verdict upon a question from the national standpoint; you get a verdict from the standpoint of the classes voting in their own interests. Now, that is precisely the thing that is to be avoided. I

time; but the hon, member tor Marquette has touched upon it, and I am somewhat surprised to find that his position has apparently Been considerably modified since he made his political tour through Canada.
I read some of his speeches, and as I under- ' stood him, the tariff was the most iniquitous thing in the world, and he purposed abolishing it root and branch. His policy was thorough. Why, I have read economics, and Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Cobden, were mild in their statements as compared with those which I read in the press as being the opinions of the hon. member for Marquette. Now, he says in this House: No, I do not intend completely to root out the tariff; I do not purpose doing that by " one fell stroke "-that is his expression. He is going to prolong the agony. He, did not say that he believed in any gradual decrease in the tariff, but he said that he did not purpose abolishing it all at once. I am sure the House and the country will be thankful for small mercies; and if my hon. friend becomes Prime Minister of this country,
I hope he will not, as he says, abolish the tariff all at one fell stroke. I am glad, however, that he has somewhat modified his views, although I should like to know which set of views he really holds, because there does appear to me to be something inconsistent between holding one set of views when speaking to the people of Canada outside this House and another set of views when speaking to the members in this House. Let me say this to my hon. fii nd: The people of this country will not tolerate any Government with a fiscal policy that regards the tariff only as a means of raising revenue, and disregards the tariff as an instrument, as it has been and will continue to be, for the development of the resources of this country, and the maintenance and stability of our industries in Canada. Let the matter be debated, as I hope it will be debated, before the farmers of this country. I know the farmers of my own province and of my constituency at all events, and I say that the farmers will be the first to subscribe to the doctrine I have enunciated. They have been misled; they have heard only one side of this question, and I shall be greatly disappointed if they do not hear the other side in the course of "the next few months. If they do not hear it within the near future, they will hear it at all events on the occasion of the next election. Is the farmer of Ontario going to vote for a policy that will depiive him of his markets im-tSir Thomas White. I
mediately at hand in Toronto, and in Hamilton, and in our other great industrial centres which we have built up? Is he by his vote going to deprive himself of those certain markets in favour of the precarious markets of the United States, which can be closed to him at any time by the capricious action of Congress at any of its sessions? Why, Mr. Speaker, it was for the farmer-and I remember it distinctly, although I was but a boy at the time-it was for the farmer as well as for the manufacturer that the National Policy of Canada was established, and the principle was recognized and acted upon by the Liberals when they came into power in 1896. I know it, because I supported the Liberals at that time.
Let me ask my hon. friend from Marquette this question:	Does he think that
the workmen of this country by their votes are going to deprive themselves of employment and expatriate themselves and their families? If we come to any such conclusion as that, I think we are putting a low estimate upon the intelligence of the industrial classes of this country. There may be a few exceptions, but I see no reason why the principle I have mentioned cannot be maintained in our tariff, and that tariff be made acceptable to almost all hon. gentlemen on this side of the House.
Now I come to my hon. friend the member for Bed Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) for whom I have always had, as he knows, a warm spot in my Irish heart, although he made a rather violent attack upon me the other day. Well, I have been so long in public life, and have been a member *of the Government here when we had real politics and good old-time partisan fighting that I do not mind that a bit; but I want to set him light, and I hope he will permit me to take up the arguments which he put forward and which are entitled to weight, and to the respect of all in this House, and then to put the other side before the House and the country for their consideration, for there is always the other side. My hon. friend made one sweeping statement. He said to my friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton):	" Let me
give you some advice. Do just the opposite to what your predecessor did, and you will come along all right." Whether the Minister of Finance will take that advice or not, I do not know. He is an intelligent man, and no doubt he will think over it and appraise it at its true value. My hon. friend from Bed Deer in that one sentence arraigned my entire financial administra-
/

tion. Mr. Speaker, I believe the financial administration of the Dominion of Canada during the war and that administration was not singular or unique among the activities of the Government, for all my colleagues did admirable work-was such, and the condition in which Canada found itself at the end of the war has been such as to stir the admiration of Great Britain and the United States and prove acceptable to the great majority of the people of this country. So if the Minister of Finance takes the advice of my hon. friend, he may run the risk of incurring the opposite of the admiration of which I have spoken. The hon. member for Red Deer says: The ex-Minister of Finance did not take my advice. So far as I know, the members of no Government, Liberal or Conservative, have taken his advice. He was giving advice to the Liberal Government prior to 1911, but they never acted upon it. He was putting forward precisely the same arguments then, and he was not voting want of confidence in that Administration as he is to-day in this Government.
My hon. friend's criticism of my Administration runs along three main lines. First, he said, your financial policy was unsound. Well, I believe in a verdict founded on results, and I purpose briefly to take up with the House the question of the aims of Canadian finance during the war, and to consider how successful or unsuccessful we were. I shall deal with the subject only in a general way. We had to find money for the conduct of the war, and our finance was so directed that we also found the money which furnished the necessary credits for the purchase in this country of our agricultural and manufactured products. In other words, the finance of this country was absolutely basic to its prosperity during the war. Without successful finance we could not have maintained our men overseas; we could not have the country in that condition of prosperity which was essential if our war effort was to be adequately supported at home, and which would leave Canada in a position to meet whatever vicissitudes in the way of depression that might come in the aftermath of the war.
One policy which I endeavoured to follow during the war was to maintain confidence. Were there any panics in Canada during the war? As a result of the action which we took from the first day of the war there was supreme confidence as to our financial institutions, and as the war went on and our business increased and prosperity
came to the people, the results of our war finance were apparent, and there never vwas a time during the entire war when there was the .slightest sign of lack of confidence in this country, financially speaking.
We appealed to the people, to the farmers, to produce all they could; we appealed ,to manufacturers to produce all they could and we appealed to those who made munitions to produce all they could. It was all for the purpose of the war. But some one says to me: "Why did you not take away all the money that the farmers made, all the money that the manufacturers made and all the money that the munition manufacturers made?" We had a voluntary system up to 1917. Supposing we had appealed to the farmers to produce all they could for the armies overseas and the civilian population behind them, supposing we had asked the manufacturers to produce all they could and had asked the munition manufacturers to turn out all the munitions they could and, at the same time, suppose we had told them that we were going to take away all their profits? They are a pretty patriotic lot of men, I ask this House-you are all sensible business men-would you have got the same production in the country and in the factory that you did get? You would not.
, Further than that if you took away all ,the money that the producing classes had .made, or the greater part of it, what position would those classes be in should there ,come the depression which always follows war? It was part of my policy as Finance .Minister to so supervise the business of this country and to adopt such measures that the prosperity of the country would be maintained during the war and that pur farmers'and our other producers should be .left in a position in which they could face whatever depression might confront them in the period succeeding the war.
. Does anybody mean to tell me that the soldiers would be any better off, or the industrial population of Canada any better .off, if the employers of labour throughout the country had been stripped of their resources and were unable to take risks at this .time when men have to take risks in view of the keen competition which must be experienced once the war is at an end? We maintained confidence and we pro-,moted the prosperity of the country. We desired, as I said in a dozen speeches, to have the business of the agricultural, industrial and commercial community in such a poisition that they could meet a

period o-f depression if i't should come,- and 'periods of depression always come after war, not immediately, hut some time afteT. Would the situation be any better to-day if tlhe farmers of Canada had not paid off so many mortgages, or if they had all their old mortgages and were putting on more?
There are many questions in war finance that do not appear on the surface. What was Pitt's war finance? Pitt's war finance was to support 'the war and promote prosperity at home. A monument was erected ,to him by the .merchants of London because he did it. I am quite content to be charged with having so promoted the finances of this country as to maintain stability and confidence, to leave our financial institutions sound and our business industries and agricultural interests .in such a condition that they can face whatever the future has to offer.
My hon. friend says: "You made loans in New York." Of course I made loans in New York. What was the effect of making loans in New York? In the first place, my hon. friend is entirely wrong in his statement-at least in the spirit of his statement-that it increased the industrial .activity of the United States, that we imported in goods what we borrowed there. Practically that is the case but all the Joans which we made in New York were .only a fraction of our imports of necessities from the United States. Where does rpy hon. friend think the proceeds of the New (York loans went in so far as we are concerned? I will tell him. The proceeds of ,these New York loans went, among other things, to assist the British Government to buy goods in Canada. If we had not been able to finance in the United States, if ,we had not had this alternative market until the United States entered the war, we should not have been able to have provided credits to the extent which we did for the sale of Canada's produce and manufactured goods.
Not only this, but these New York loans stabilized finance as between the two countries. If it were practicable for the Minister of Finance to-day to make a loan in New York, what would be the effect on the exchange situation? We pegged exchange during the war. The Minister of Finance cannot do that to-day. He is at a disadvantage. But we pegged exchange in New York during the war at a point and a half or two points. Yet my hon. friend blames me for having made loans in New York. What has he to say of 
Great Britain whom he admires so greatly and justly? Did they make any loam in New York? They sent $1,300,000,000 of gold through my office, the greatest transaction in gold in the 'history of the world, to New York. They sold $3,000,000,000 worth of securities in New York and they made loan after loan .amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars secured by collateral which they gathered up in London and which was acceptable to American investors. They poured out their treasure in New York, for the supreme purpose of winning the war by levying upon the material resources of the United States. Up to the time the United States entered the war the British Government used'hundreds of millions of dollars of the money I have spoken of, raised by loan or sale in New York, and spent it in this country for our products.
Then, take it from the exchange standpoint. I have said to the House that our financing in New York stabilized our exchange. It was a good thing to do. We did not permit extravagance at that time because we had an embargo against luxuries, because we had a food controller, and because the people of this country were denying themselves in order that more food might go overseas. It was not a period in which we had great importations of luxuries as compared with the present time; the loans were sound if for no other purpose than to stabilize exchange. Does my hon. friend controvert that? Then let m'e tell him what Great Britain did, because I worked in the closest harmony and cooperation with the Mother Country during the war. In one year, 1916, the year before the United States entered the war, Great Britain used one thousand million dollars of American exchange to peg sterling exchange and keep it up. If Great Britain had hot supported sterling exchange where would it have been during the war? It would have been lower than it is to-day My hon. friend is on bad ground when he talks about our borrowing in New York. My hon. friend says: Your currency is inflated. It is less inflated than the currency of any country in the world; less inflated than that of the United States now-which, as I stated, if regard be had to her population and resources, did not put a tenth of Canada's effort into the war-she had not the opportunity, she was not in long enough. Will my hon. friend look at our gold reserves. Let him look at the gold reserve of the Federal Reserve Bank; let him look at the gold reserve of the Bank of England

-there is not much to look at-and then criticize the Government of Canada for inflating the currency. We have got one of the best currency situations in the world to-day, and there is not a financial man in Canada, in the United States, or in England that does not know it.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Can the hon. gentleman give the House any idea of what the percentage increase of our currency is over what it was the year before the war?


William Thomas White: I cannot offhand but the Minister of Finance can give that information without any difficulty. I placed it on Hansard last year in my Budget speech.


Michael Clark: Surely my hon. friend has some idea of that most elementary question in his own department.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will get the details in due course but the statement that I have made is correct. My recollection is that it was forty per cent of the gold reserve in Canada.


Michael Clark: My question is: What was the percentage of the increase of the currency of Canada over what it was the year before the war?


William Thomas White: It does not compare with the circulation of either the British Government or the Bank of England. My hon. friend should look up the facts when he speaks upon this question.


Michael Clark: I am looking.


William Thomas White: Now my hon.
friend (Mr. Clark) also touched upon the tariff. I am not sure whether it was he, or the- hon. member for Marquette (Mr-Crerar) who referred to the fact which has been put forward on more than one occasion to the farmers of this country, that on account of our policy the farmers have moved from Canada. I ask the hon. gentleman where are the farmers who would have been in Canada but for our policy? -I ask the hon. gentleman did those who left the farms of Canada to go to the United States engage in agriculture, and if so how many of them? You will find the cities over there full of Canadians who went seeking industrial, commercial and financial opportunities, where they have done exceptionally well; but it seems to me it would be a wise policy on the part of this country to bring about such a development of the industries and the commerce and finances of Canada, as to keep those men at home
in the work in which they desire to engage. Because men have varied talents. How many men in this country are farmers? A large percentage, it is true. But farmers' sons have various talents. One is a skilled mechanic, another will make a soldier, another a professional man, and so on. How are you going to prevent the farmers of this country from giving their sons that opportunity if they so desire? All that is involved in this question.
Now my hon. friend says: Oh, but your domestic loans. He shakes his head over our domestic loans and says there is plenty of money in the country. So there is. But does the hon. gentleman think that the loan which was floated last Fall could have been floated in 1914? Will he look at the bank credits of Canada now and compare them with the situation before the war, and will he tell me we could have floated a Victory Loan in 1914? No, we could not; the money was not in the country. What was the result of the floating of our Victory Loans, broadly speaking? Every loan a success.' But for that our banks would have had to take the securities as they did in New York. That is one of the difficul

 ties down there at the present time. Those banks had to take too many of the securities because the interest rate was too low. Three thousand million dollars the financial institutions in New York took that they did not want. It is the function of a bank not to buy securities but to loan on securities. We finished the war with a perfectly clean financial situation. None of the banks owned bonds that they did not desire to own and the amount owned was very small. It was a perfectly healthy situation because our loans had been distributed all over Canada among probably two or three millions of people. They are the bond holders of Canada; they have got that stake as well as other stakes in the community. What about our securities, and from a market standpoint? -No country in the world-including Great Britain that my hon. friend so properly holds up as an example-where the Victory Loan securities stood at par, or above, at the end of the w'ar except Canada-not one. In the United States, 90-92. How did the bond owners -feel all over the country? I would like to have all the bond holders of Canada here that took Victory Loans but you could not gather them in Ottawa, the place is too small- one million and a half and two millions of them. Yet my hon. friend gets up and contends we should have put the loans out at such a figure they would be down to 90

now, instead of par where my tax-free bonds are. That is not good politics even. The public in this country that have bought Government bonds like to see those bonds stand up in the market. Because they need money from time to time they want to realize, and they do not want to realize at a loss. Take the insurance companies that represent the interest not only of stockholders but policy holders. Supposing in the United States they wrote down their securities to the market value? In this country they can show them the market value and there is no loss to policy holders of insurance .companies who took tens of millions of dollars of our securities. At the close of the war Canada was in a position to say: The public of this country subscribed enough money to send 500,000 soldiers overseas and to fight thousands of miles from their base; to provide the necessary credits for the purchase of our agricultural and other products; and at the end of the war our banks had no securities, had made loans upon securities to only a limited amount, and our securities stood above par on our stock exchange. I will rest my reputation upon that statement before this House and before posterity.
Why, Mr. Speaker, we appealed to the public to save. By a publicity campaign, by direct personal appeal, by every proper method we asked our people, rich and poor, to save their money and give it to the Government in return for our securities; we took possession of the securities marketed in Canada and would not allow issues to be made except for essential purposes; we shut luxuries out of Canada by Order in Council; through our bond houses and our banks we discouraged the purchase of Anglo-French and other securities in New York in order that all the money of Canada might be available for the purposes of our loan; and we appealed through our Victory Loan organization- the greatest organization ever put together by any country during the war -from the Atlantic to the Pacific for subscriptions to our loan. No Minister of Finance ever had such an instrument as that Victory Loan organization, which, with the patriotism of our people, made those great loans a success.
Now, my hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) says, " You made the bonds tax-free." Unhappily for him he has taken a particularly unfortunate time to put that argument forward. It would have seemed more weighty last year than this. Last Fall we put out a taxable loan, whereas before our loans had been tax-free. The respon-

sibility for that is upon the Government, and the credit, if any, for it, is due to the Government. In July of last year, before leaving office, I called together the leading members of the Victory Loan organization and the best bond experts in Canada and asked them to determine, among other things, whether we should put out a taxable or a tax-free loan, telling them that if it could be done, I would prefer the taxable issue. The situation had cleared a great deal since the war, our securities were all selling on a better basis, and we came to the conclusion that we should try the taxable issue. There was some dissent on the part of a few of the ablest bond experts. They said, " You will get the loan out, but we are a little doubtful as. to whether you can hold it out, because it is a little out of scale with the price of securities to-day, and those which we expect will prevail." My successor, Sir Henry Drayton, who threw himself with great energy and enthusiasm and ability into the campaign, was able, I am glad to say, to make a great success of that Victory Loan. To-day the securities of the taxable loan are 96 and 97; the securities of the tax-free loan are at or slightly above par. In, other words, the advantage of the tax-free privilege is a real market factor, which brings about a constant buying power in the country, which in turn tends to keep your market right.
Now, I say further to the hon. member for Red Deer that on his assumption-in which I do not agree, and I will state the reason later-that on his assumption if we had put out all the loans-$2,000,000,000 of securities-on a taxable basis, instead as we did most of them on a tax-free basis, all the Victory Loan securities to-day would be at 90 or lower, for there is no market situation to sustain them. What has happened the last few months is this, and it throws a little light on the question of exchange-which I am coming to a little later-spoken of by the hon. member for Red Deer in terms rather derogatory to myself: 'Our exchange has gone down compared with the United States'; but Great Britain's exchange is lower. Unless my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Sir Henry Drayton) had taken the steps which he recently took, Great Britain would sell back to us or would offer in our markets the securities of our municipalities,-of our provinces, the securities guaranteed by the Dominion and by the provinces that we sold to her years ago and which have been years overseas-she would have sold and continued to sell those here until our exchange

dropped to the level of sterling exchange; that is what would have happened.
I told my hon. friend what would have happened on his theory that we put out 5J% taxable bonds during the war. Now 1 will tell him that we could not have done it even if we desired to -do so. There are two essentials, Mr. Speaker, which a Finance Minister must consider when he is putting out a loan, and he makes a great mistake if he overlooks either. In the first place, he must get his money-the offering must be a success; and, in the second place, he must consider the market situation after the loan, especially "if he is going back for another loan. You have got to look a little further than the end of your nose in public finance where you are offering large loans which, to a certain extent, are taken on the inspiration of patriotism. I might at the start have put out a 5i% Victory Loan taxable, and the public would have taken, not as much as I got, but a very substantial amount,-although I know we could not have got anything like the amount we did get because those skilled in investments could have bought scores of securities of the highest quality in New York to yield as high as 7, 8 and 9%, among others the Anglo-French loan backed by the credit of Great Britain and France.
Supposing I had put the first loan out taxable at 5i%, the trouble is it would not stay out, it would keep coming back, and if I desired to stabilize the market I should have had to pay out tens of millions of dollars to keep that loan up, so that when I went back to the public my loans would get the reception which our subsequent loans were accorded, because my loans were as a matter of fact stabilized. I say to my hon. friend from Red Deer, and that there is not a financial man in this country of high standing who will contradict me, that if we had put out taxable loans during the war we would have finished the war on a 6J instead of a 5J% basis. What would have been the result? My successor would have his interest charges increased in respect to the debt of from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000, and he would not have got one fraction of that amount back from the comparatively few people in the country who derive a substantial advantage from purchasing the tax-free bonds. My hon. friend might say, " Well, I would rather that the Dominion Government should have to pay $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 more annually rather than A, B and C, wealthy men, should be able to buy tax-free bonds and not pay the full amount of taxation called for by the 13
legislation of this Parliament." Well, I would not. You have got to look at this thing as a whole. Any Finance Minister looks at his balance sheet, he wants to get his best result there; and that is what we got.
It is often put forward that a man with an income of say, $11,000 derived from $200,000 of tax-free bonds, does not pay any income tax. Neither does he. But what could he do? He could do what men are doing to-day, buy municipal and provincial and Dominion guaranteed 6J and 7% securities, and pay his tax and still have more than $11,000 income. I admit that when the income derived is above $25,000, $30,000 or $40,000 a year there is a considerable advantage to those who buy tax-free bonds. But that advantage is negligible as compared. with the saving of from $10,000,000 to $15,000,000 a year ' which I contend has been effected in the balance sheet of this Dominion by rqason of our having floated loans at 5| instead of 6i per cent.
My hon. friend says that the lowering-of the credit of Canada is due to faulty administration .of finances. Now, that is a very sweeping statement. Is the lowering of the pound sterling due to faulty action of the British Treasury? What is the world situation in exchange to-day, brought about by the war? The Italian lira, corresponding with the French franc, at 6 cents; the French franc at eight cents; the German mark at one cent; the pound sterling was as low as 3.30 as compared with $4,861, the par of exchange. One third of the pound sterling wiped off-the pound sterling, to which before the war all the currencies of the world touched their hats. Is the British Treasury to blame because its exchange is at a discount with that of the United States? My hon. friend failed to observe that the British pound is at a discount with the Canadian dollar. The Canadian dollar is down 15 per cent; the pound sterling is down 30 per cent. My hon. friend says that it is the free t-adc policy of England that has brought about the exchange situation- which confronts her to-day.


Michael Clark: My hon. friend cannot produce an extract from my speech showing that I said that. I did not make any such remark.


William Thomas White: Well, I accept my hon. friend's correction. That, undoubtedly, was the impression he gave. He did say that the lowering of our credit-I think I am quoting his precise words-is due to



faulty action of the Finance Department. Why is not the lowering of the British exchange to a greater degree dub to faulty action of the free trade Government of England? Now, let me say this for my hon. friend's comfort-


Michael Clark: Is that a question?


William Thomas White: No, it is a rhetorical question? Let me say this for his comfort; free trade has nothing whatever to do with it, one way or the other. It is the war that has brought about a lowering in the value of the British pound sterling, just as it has brought about a fall in the Canadian exchange. If we had free trade here to-day it could not improve our exchange situation; it could only aggregate it. Would our exchange he any better than it is to-day if there were no tariff in this country; if goods were coming in from the United States under a free trade policy?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


An hon. MEMBER:: Worse.


William Thomas White: Worse,-I should say it would be worse. Economic laws show clearly that it would be worse, because on top of our tariff with United States you have another tariff of 17 per cent by the reason of the fall in our exchange. This discussion of the respective merits of tax-free and taxable bonds is not new. In fact, there is hardly anything new in the world. If my hon. friend will look up the Democratic platform laid down in the Civil War he will find a plank against tax free bonds. The Republicans adopted tax-free bonds, because they carried on the war; they were the people who had to face the financial situation and get the money. The Democrats could criticise; they did not have to act; and they put a plank in their platform after the war condemning the Republican party. History simply repeats itself. Why, Mr. Speaker, when war breaks out and nobody knows whether it will last one year, or two years, five years or ten years, or whether the country is going to come through bankrupt, or what the taxation is going to be, is it not advisable that there should be some certainty in the amount which a man may rely upon getting for his money, at a time when he can otherwise obtain the highest possible rates for it? The Republicans were confronted with that condition in the Civil War, and we were confronted with it here.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to offer the Government any advice. I have worked

with them; T know their zeal; I know their ability. I have entire confidence in them to meet any problem that is likely to arise duting the further term of this Parliament.
1 believe it is the settled opinion of this country that the Government should carry on.
The Prime Minister is ill. I have been pleased with the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite with regard to the Prime Minister; there is always a chivalry in this House for tnen under disab'lity. Nobody knows fhe extent of the work carried on and the burden of the responsibility borne by Sir Robert Borden during the war and in the period since the war. Nobody knows the weight carried by the ministers. After all, men are only flesh and blood, not steel and iron. Sir Robert Borden is not the first Prime Minister of Canada who has been ill. Sir John A. Macdonald was seriously ill on various occasions. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier was seriously ill in 1900. He told me about it once; so serious was his illness that it was looked upon as remarkable that he recovered. Prime Ministers are like other men, subject to human infirmity. The Prime Minister should have all the time he desires in which to recover his health. The Government is in good hands; at its head is one of the ablest parliamentarians in this House, if not the ablest. Carry on-that is what the people of Canada desire this Government to do-carry on, always dealing with questions from the standpoint of the national interest as opposed to the sectional interest. Unless I am much mistaken, the public will make short work at the next election of extrem- * ists of this kind. I have every confidence in the ability of the Government to deal with the weighty problems that may come before it,-the problem of promoting immigration; the problem of maintaining our trade and industry; the problem of dealing with soldiers' pensions and the Civil Reestablishment and rehabilitation of the soldier; the railway problem.
An election at this time? The leader of the Opposition surely would not want an election unless he had some hope of coming back as deader of the House and of the Government. We have taken over one of the greatest railway systems in the world, if not the greatest. The Government and those on th's side of the House have committed themselves to the largest project of public ownership that has ever been attempted. What is the problem? The problem is to organize and administer that system and its finances through competent men, who will not be influenced by nor ex-

posed to partisan interference, so as to get the best results for Canada out of that great railway system. Who is most likely to do that well-the Government that risked its political life on the great experiment, or hon. gentlemen opposite? I must say that if Liberalism be a vital principle, as is so often put forward in this House, I am amazed that when it comes to concrete cases, such as taking over those railways, it does not exhibit something of that principle. This Government, the people of Canada will believe, can take ov^r those railways and provide for their operation much more capably than hon. gentlemen opposite who do not believe in nationalization at all. There is no doubt about that. A great deal can be done in developing all our national resources, such as our fuel resources and our power resources, through the development of our canals.. These are great and weighty problems, but not beyond the capabilities of this Government as it exists to-day. I say to the Government: Continue, as I know you have been doing, look at every question from the national standpoint; rely upon the excellence of your administration, and carry on.


Mr. ARTHUR BLISS GOPP (Westmorland) :: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are all gratified again to hear the voice of the exMinister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) who has entertained the House this afternoon with a very long and interesting discourse. It must also be gratifying; to hon. members, at least on this side of the House, when they see the hon. gentleman in his place, because it apparently is only when the Government feel themselves in somewhat of a tight corner that the hon. gentleman is hurried down from Toronto to take part in the debate and to whip his followers into line. It must also be gratifying to hon. members on this side when we realize that the amendment moved by my hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) is having its weight in the country and in this House, seeing that the services of the hon. gentleman (Sir Thomas White) are required for this particular occasion. This is not the first occasion, I would remind my hon. friend, that he has been brought from his home hurriedly to take part in the discussions in this House. I think it was last session, when the Grand Trunk lailway question was before Parliament and when the newspapers from one end of Canada to the other were denouncing the Government for attempting to commit the country to taking over and operating the GriSnd Trunk railway, that my hon. friend was brought 131
down from Toronto ip a great hurry, and he told this House and the country that, because of the prosperity of the Dominion of Canada, we were perfectly able to assume the vast obligations necessary to finance this road; that we could do that without at all injuring the credit of the Dominion. To assume an obligation of some seven or eight hundred million dollars was a mere bagatelle in the mind of my hon. friend, and he so impressed his views upon his supporters ihat they voted almost as a unit to take over the Giand Trunk railway system, and the Bill was carried through this Parliament. Nor was this the only time that my hon. friend was brought hurriedly to Ottawa to give some information to this Parliament. In the same session and only a few days afterwards, we were discussing the question of giving aid to the returned soldiers. My hon. friend's influence was again sought by his party and he was again brought from Toronto, and he told us that it would be practically impossible to give aid to the returned soldiers and their dependents because it would bankrupt the country. Now for the third time, we have my hon. friend here telling this House what we should do in regard to different matters coming before Parliament. We are glad to have him with us, and I congratulate my hon. friend that he thinks he is still winning the war.
He made some objections to the acceptance of the amendment moved by my hon. friend, an amendment which, he says, means an election in this country. That is exactly what it means. He throws the challenge across the floor of this House to hon. members on this side, that we are not in earnest. Let me tell my hon. friend, that hon. members on this side are absolutely in earnest in their request for an election in this country. We believe that
5 p.m. the people are demanding an election; we believe that they are entitled to an election. It does not matter to me what the result of the election may be; the people have a right to say who shall be their representative in the future and whether or not this present aggregation shall carry on as a Government. If my hon. friend thinks that we are not in earnest, instead of expecting us to absent ourselves from this House on this vote, let him and some T>f his followers absent themselves, and instead of cracking the party whip, let them say to their supporters :	Vote the way you please on this
question and we shall be satisfied. Then we would find out whether or not the

people wanted an election and wanted to keep this Government in office. Another excuse which he gives for not having an election is that Union Government will be returned to power. That, however, is the very best reason, speaking from his viewpoint, for having an election. As a third reason, he says that group systems are dangerous, and he criticizes the farmers of this country because they assumed the responsibility of taking some part in political warfare. For myself, I congratulate the National Progressive party, if that is the proper name, as given by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark), for taking the stand they have.
I congratulate them for coming around to my view, because I have followed that policy for the past fifteen years. I sincerely believe that the interest taken by our farmers in the government of Canada will have a splendid influence upon our politics. I believe they .are taking a step in the right direction in taking part in' the political life of Canada and that they will make their influence felt to the benefit of this country. My hon. friend says that Union Government would sweep the country. I do not know where he gets any evidence of that. What about the recent by-elections? Has he sufficient evidence from those byelections that the people of Canada are straining eagerly at the leash to vote for Union Government? That is not the conclusion I draw from the result of the byelections that have already been held.
My hon. friend also spoke of the leader of the Opposition as being somewhat young in the game and of rushing matters too much. I do not know if advice in that regard comes with very good grace from the exMinister of Finance. He pretends to have a great deal of confidence in this Government and tells them to carry on, but he also told us that he had intended to resign his 1 seat in this House, and was very glad he had kept so that he could support the Government on this occasion. If the . Union Government had a mandate from the people and it was their duty still to carry on, surely it was the duty of the ex-Minister of Finance to stay at the head of his department and assist the' Government to carry on, but soon after the resignation of the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar), he left the Government to drift along as best they could. Now he tells them it is their duty to oarry on. The hon. gentleman himself was in somewhat of a hurry to get away from the sinking ship and plant his feet upon solid ground. My hon. friend's [Mr. Copp.l	,
political career has taken a somewhat zigzag course. It has not always been as straight and circumspect as that of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House. He tells us himself that in 1896 he supported the Liberal party, and he continued to support it, I am told, until 1911. He now holds up his hands in holy horror and says: We must not have a group system of Government, we must not have our farmer friends coming here and having a say as to the policies of this country. Why not? Who is more responsible for the Farmers' Movement in Canada than the ex-Minister of Finance himself? In 1911 the Liberal party led by the late lamented Sir Wilfrid Laurier entered into an agreement with the United States for reciprocity, and who were the men who helped defeat reciprocity when it was submitted to the country? The Noble Eighteen, of whom my hon. friend the exMinister of Finance was one. He withdrew his support from the Liberal party, and along with his capitalistic and manufacturing friends helped to defeat the reciprocity agreement which was entered into by the Liberal Government for the purpose of assisting the agriculturists of this country Now my hon. friend complains because the agriculturists are organizing and demanding something from this Government. I say that the ex-Minister of Finance is one of the few who are responsible for forcing this movement upon the country. The result is that we have now in this House a third party. I am satisfied that they will give a very good account of themselves and take a great part in our future political history.
I do not propose to follow the ex-Minister of Finance in all his meanderings on the tariff, the conduct of the war, the exchange situation, and the other matters he discussed. I am absolutely in accord with the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in moving his resolution that the time has arrived when this Government should submit themselves to the people at a general election. You might ask, why should there be a general election? The exMinister of Finance says that there should not be one now, that the Government has a mandate from the people to carry on. I contend that the Union Government, as formed in 1917, had a mandate from the people to carry on during the war, and possibly for a short period thereafter until demobilization was completed. That time has expired, and what better evidence of the fact do we want than to see one member of the Government after another resigning and giving as their reason that their contract

had expired. The ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Crerar) joined the Union Government for a certain purpose, and gave it his support for a certain length of time because he thought, that was his patriotic duty, but he resigned last year and gave as his reason that his contract had expired. Shortly afterwards the ex-Minister of Finance resigned from the Government, and so did the exMinister of Public Works (Mr. Carvell), now Chairman of the Railway Commission, and who also gave as his reason that his contract had expired. His resignation was followed by that of the ex-Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Mewburn), and only a few days ago by the resignation from the Cabinet of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). And thus it goes on. Will any one say after all these important and influential members of the Cabinet have withdrawn their support from the Government, that we have a full representative and constitutional government in this country?
I want to say on behalf of the province from which I come, that it is the firs time in the history of Canada that New Bruus-wick has not had a representative in the Federal Cabinet. What do we find as a jesult of this non-representation? Neglect along every line. The transportation question, for instance, is being neglected by this Government. The great national port of St. .Tohn is being neglected because New Brunswick has no representative in the Cabinet. There is not a man in the Cabinet who takes the least interest in Maritime Province matters, and who will speak for New Brunswick when questions affecting it are under consideration. We should have a representative in the Cabinet. That the Government realizes this is proven beyond peradventure because they have been flirting with two or three different names in the province for the last five or six months. One day the newspapers heralded all over the country that the hon. J. D. Hazen, exMinister of Marine and Fisheries, was to come back to assume office. Another time a different name was mentioned, and later on a different name still. The Government has not yet succeeded in getting into the Cabinet a representative from the province of New Brunswick, because they are not prepared to risk the chances of an election. I believe that it was practically all arranged that we should have a representative in the Cabinet from New Brunswick just about the time the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) was contesting the by-election in that county,
but after the Government's candidate lost his deposit, although he had three Cabinet ministers helping him in his campaign, the gentleman the Government had in mind who was to be provided with a seat in the county of York began to think: I had better leave well enough alone; what I have I will hold, and forget about this Cabinet position. That is the reason the gentleman whose name was mentioned at that time is not now sitting in the Cabinet.
Much has been said in this debate about lowering the tariff and about free trade. In theory we are all practically, free traders but it is a question as to what would happen if we should have free trade. I am not an expert on this question. I was brought up to be pretty free-minded and to believe that as free an interchange of trade between nations as possible would be a good thing for everybody. That is naturally the view I take and I think that practically everybody realizes its soundness.
When my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) was speaking the other day, some one threw the question across the House: " Where would you get your revenue?" The question, " where would you get your revenue " is not what is bothering the hon. gentleman who asked it: What is bothering him is: " Where am I going to get my excessive profits if we have a lower tariff?" That u'as the question that was in his mind; it was not the question of revenue. He realized that if we had a lower tariff he would not make the excessive profits as a manufacturer that he now makes. That is the question that is uppermost in the minds -of all those gentlemen who are opposed to a lower tariff.
I would be the last one to attempt to in any way interfere with the manufacturing interests of our country but I have yet to be convinced that if our tariff walls were lowered to a certain degree, so as to give a certain advantage to our farmers who are using agricultural implements, it would not be very greatly to the disadvantage of this country. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) a few minutes ago asked: " What would the working men do; would they vote to do away with the manufacturers of this country?" No, decidedly not. The question only shows that the hon. gentleman is trying to draw a red herring across the track. If the tariff wall were taken down absolutely in regard to certain articles that are manufactured in this country as well as in the United States, it would not close down our factories. The manu-

facturers would not be obliged to close up their shops. There is no danger of it. The workingmen will do the work just the same but the manufacturer will not make as much money. The work will go on. Why cannot the manufacturers of this country compete with the manufacturers of the United States and other countries in this market as well as they can in a foreign market? Go to Australia, or go to England, and you will find our manufactured goods there being sold as cheaply as the manufactured goods from the United States. If they can compete in foreign markets they can compete in the home market, and we should have the advantage of the lower tariff. The people should be given the opportunity of cheaper machinery and, indirectly, as you go down the line, there should be cheaper production and a lessened cost of living.
The speech from the Throne contains twelve paragraphs, ten of which constitute a sort of pleasant essay telling us what the Government have been doing during the past year. They tell us that they have been looking after the soldiers' re-establishment and demobilization, and that they have been doing wonderful things along that line. I would rather have the evidence of the demobilized soldier himself as to what the Government have been doing for our returned soldiers. The next two paragraphs give the whole bill of fare which the Government proposes to place before Parliament at the present session. One paragraph says:
f
Bill to provide for a Dominion Franchise will be introduced, dealing with the qualifications of voters and the procedure necessary to enable all persons legally qualified to register their votes.
We require a franchise Act if we are to have an election. It is to be hoped that we are to have an election some day unless some means are devised of perpetually continuing this Government in power. If an election does come we must have a franchise Act and the voters must be enrolled so that they can poll their votes. The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) referred to this matter the other day. I want to say that I sincerely trust that the Government will realize that there is only one way to frame a franchise Act and that is to draft an honest and just law under which the people will be in a position to independently cast their ballots and that all the people who have taken part in the politics of this country for many years will have the same opportunity of voting whenever the election may be brought about. I am not going to

discuss that in detail or what may happen when the Bill is introduced into the House. We will have another opportunity of dealing with the question and I sincerely trust we will be able to get on common ground and have a Bill that will be satisfactory to the House and the country. Another paragraph of the speech from the Throne says:
Other Bills will he presented for your consideration including a Bill respecting Copyrights and Bills providing for the amendment of the Patent Act, of the Doan and Trust Companies Acts, the Indian Act, and the Exchequer Courts Act.
That is the bill of fare that has been laid down by the Government for the present session. It seems to me that some information might have been given to the men and women of this country who are looking for some relief from the burden imposed upon them by the high cost of living.
We have had a Board of Commerce working for some months but it has been disorganized. As far as I have been able to see there has been nothing done. Nothing has been attempted by this Board of Commerce, representing the Government, or by the Government itself, or by any member of the Government, to contribute in the slightest degree to a reduction of the high cost of living. For a time they forced the newsprint manufacturers to supply the newspapers but I see that they even withdrew from that the other day on the ground that they had no authority to deal with the matter. I do not know why they should have any more right to control the price of newsprint than they have to control the price of any other article or commodity that the people use, but if they have they have not attempted to exercise that power. We find day after day the cost of living climbing higher and not the slightest effort being made by the Government in any way, shape or form to keep the necessaries of life from mounting beyond the reach of a very large number of our people.
The amendment moved by the leader of the Opposition will, I will say, have my hearty support because I believe he is taking the right course in submitting that proposition to the House. In my opinion it is the duty of the Opposition to bring before Parliament, and through it before the country, the views they have on the public questions of the day. I believe, and such is the view of hon. gentlemen generally on this side, that the time is opportune for an election in Canada. Hon. gentlemen opposite say: Oh, but you will not have any chance of being returned. That is not the question at all. Regardless of

what party will be returned, the Canadian people have the right to express their opinion on the policy of the Government and they have not had such an opportunity since 1911. In that year an election took place on the Reciprocity Agreement, and the Government of the day was defeated. It was succeeded by a new Administration, and in 1917 a general election was brought on when the policy of the present Government was not an issue at all. The questions fought out had reference solely to the conduct by the Government of the war. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) was a supporter, and one of the candidates, of the Union Government in that election, and he has told us that the only question he spoke on during the contest was the conduct of the Union Government during the prosecution of the war. .Now that issue is gone, and I maintain the time has arrived when the people of /Canada should have an opportunity of expressing their views upon the Government's course and the issues' involved. That is what the amendment aims at and for that reason I support it.
The ex-Minister of . Finance, pleading with his supporters opposite, has claimed that we ought to have a Union Government-that Union Government should carry on and that we should have a Liberal-Conservative Party not only in name but in substance. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a continuance of Union Government is possible? That is a matter as to which other parties have something to say. The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat), who is not in his seat to-day, also suggested that we should have a continuance of Union. Government. I wonder where the hon. gentleman would fit in under those circumstances? The hon. gentleman's observations recall to my mind the report, published I think in the Toronto Globe, of a meeting in that city at which he was nominated some two years ago. Speaking from memory, because I have not the report at present before me, the meeting was a joint one of Liberals and Conservatives in the riding of Parkdale. This very question of the continuance of Union Government came up for discussion, and there appeared to be some doubt as to who should be the candidate for the riding. The hon. gentleman's name was advanced as a candidate, but in view of the hon. gentleman's political antecedents, there was apparently some misgiving. Finally an old Conservative spoke up and said: We will accept him, (Mr. Mowat), but let it be understood we are only borrowing him
for the occasion. When the election is over, and when we revert to party lines again we do not want to keep him any longer, and we will return him to the Liberal Party again. I wonder what our good Conservatives friends in the constituency of Parkdale will say if Union Government is continued and what they will do with their borrowed friend. In this matter, I am not here to speak for the Liberal Party, and although we are a democratic party and even though in the case of a man who has sinned, it is sometimes possible to wipe away those sins and make him white once more. What, let me ask, is going to happen to my hon. friend provided the Conservatives who took the stand to which I have alluded, declare they are going to have nothing more to do with the hon. gentleman, and thev return him /from whence he came?
I did not rise with any idea of speaking at great length or of discussing such questions as the tariff and the rate of exchange. But when my hon. friend (Sir Thomas White) offered advice as to what would be the proper course to pursue in future with respect to Union Government I did not feel like letting the opportunity pass without drawing attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman's own political course has not always been one of marked steadiness all along the line. We are told in one breath that the country is prosperous and that we have great financial resources at our disposal and in the very next breath when it comes to adequately recognizing the claims of our returned soldiers and maintaining soldiers' widows and dependents the statement is made that it is absolutely impossible. The hon. gentleman also tells us that Union Government must carry on but he shakes himself clear of any and every responsibility in regard to it. He declares that it is the duty of the Prime Minister to carry on and to assume great responsibilities, but the ex-Finance Minister himself refuses to shoulder his share of the burdens to be borne. Along with all other members of the House I deeply regret the condition of health of the Prime Minister. We all have a very high regard for that Rt. hon. gentleman; we deplore the reasons for his absence from the House, and we sincerely trust that the reassuring statement with respect to his health made a few days ago may turn out to be well founded. We all want to see the Rt. hon. gentleman remain in good health but would he not bo endangering that health by again assuming the responsibilities of office. Personally I would like to prevent any pos-

sibility of the right hon. gentleman's health being further endangered by remaining in office and continuing to shoulder heavy responsibilities, and -with that object in view I shall gladly vote for the amendment.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: $250,000,000; and the argument against abandonment is that along its lines settlers have established themselves, towns have been built up and vested interests have been created, and that abandonment would do great injustice to those settlers and vested interests. Well, let us say that the best policy is that the Transcontinental shall not be abandoned, and that it shall be operated. Its construction was due to the inexplicable folly of the Canadian people. I am not blaming one party more than another, though I might say that these colossal blunders involving the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific were the result of the administration of the so-called Liberal party.
Now, let us take the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, which has fallen into the hands of this country. The members of this House and the people of the country ought to have it clearly in their minds that the Administration has not embarked upon this national railway policy from preference. National ownership of railways is all right, but the national ownership that we are getting through being obliged to acquire these white elephants is not the kind of public ownership that any sane man would care to embark upon. But there was the Transcontinental; it was thrown on our lap, and if we do not operate it it goes into decay. The same with the Grand Trunk Pacific. Some of it is of value, but the portion from Edmonton to the Pacific coast is another line which will probably not earn its axle grease for some years. As the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) said this afternoon, the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental was made an issue in the election of 1904. I remember how it was said that the people of the West were clamouring for this accommodation. They were not clamouring at all. It was the exploiters that were clamouring to get contracts and to institute a cry that would carry the country. Well, the proposal did carry the country, and we have the Grand Tiunk Pacific constructed at a cost of two or three hundred millions of dollars. I think the total cost is something like $97,000 a mile. I recall that the Brandon section of the Manitoba system was built at a cost of $9,000 a mile. Of course, I do not institute a comparison, because one line goes through prairie country and the other is over the mountains. But we have the Transcontinental from Moncton to Winnipeg, the Grand Trunk Pacific from Winnipeg to the Pacific coast, the Cana-
dian Northern-of which I shall only refer to the British Columbia section as unproductive and uneconomic-and we have that section of the Canadian Northern from Sudbury down to Toronto. These four vast stretches of railway which have been dumped upon our laps are included in the National railway system of Canada. Now, Mr. Speaker, while you may denounce the Laurier-Sifton regime that drove these enormities through Parliament, still, it must be remembered that the people voted upon the issue and that the people are responsible and must take the consequences. It must be perfectly evident to everybody that the Transcontinental and the other lines which I have named are uneconomic portions, white elephant portions, of the nationally-owned system of railways. Some time ago I had it in mind to suggest to this Parliament that those uneconomic portions of the railways ought to be grouped together and labelled " public ward system." They belong to the public, but they are just wards. We are losing immense amounts of money in their operation; they really should not be operated; but to charge rates oh those uneconomic systems sufficient to pay operating expenses and to give a return to the public, is a most absurd proposition. The people must take their medicine with regard to those uneconomic portions of the nationally-owned system. I think no one will dissent from that view.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight oclock.


Robert Lorne Richardson: When the House rose for dinner I was discussing the undesirability of the Government and this Parliament allowing an increase in railway freight and passenger rates as has been proposed, and indeed advocated, both by the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway and by Mr. D. B. Hanna, president of our nationally-owned system. The House was rather slim when it rose at six o'clock, and is still fairly slim. Perhaps that is in a measure due to the heavy artillery that the members heard with such interest this afternoon. I should not like to attribute it to the speech of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Copp), and I certainly do not intend to attribute it to myself as the House was rather thin when I started. I think that for the benefit of members who were not present this afternoon I had better recapitulate briefly.

In opposing the granting of an increase in freight and passenger rates to the extent of thirty or forty per cent as has been proposed, I reviewed this afternoon the position of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I stated that the people of Canada had given to that company, in subsidies, exemptions and largess, an amount sufficient to build the entire railway, and I made the point that when these vast subsidies were given the people expected, as they had a right to expect, that this company would be able to furnish transportation to the people of this country at a very low rate. That at all events was the expectation of the late Sir John Macdonald who fathered the great project. I was able to show that the rates this company has charged for the last number of years have enabled it to accumulate an undistributed surplus to an amount of about $230,000,000 or $240,000,000. I was able to show that their earnings during the last few weeks, according to their own returns, were vastly in excess of their earnings for the corresponding period last year, the average increase in earnings being something like 20 or 25 per cent. I therefore felt, and I am sure every member of this House will feel, that no justification exists for an increase in railway rates so far as the Canadian Pacific is concerned. I criticised-and I reiterate my criticism now-the remarkable position that Mr. D. B. Hanna, president of the nationally-owned system, is taking at the present time, going about addressing Canadian Clubs and public bodies, advocating an increase in freight rates on the nationally-owned system. I quoted from a newspaper published in Ottawa to-day Mr. Hanna's statement to the effect that the nationally-owned system, if given proper rates, would soon have earnings enough to pay operating expenses and interest on an estimated cost of a billion and a half, of dollars, and he added that if they got such a freight rate as was allowed in South Australia the nationally-owned railways might be expected to pay interest on the immense national debt of this Dominion. I pointed out the folly of Mr. Hanna, or indeed any public man taking the position that rates should be such as would more than pay operating expenses and interest on the cost involved in construction. I referred to the absolute absurdity of expecting those citizens of Canada who use these roads for transporting their goods to pay rates higher than sufficient to pay operating expenses and interest. How absolutely absurd it must appear to any member of this House that any railway, and particularly the nationally-owned roads, should have rates imposed upon them sufficient to pay operating expenses, interest on capital, and interest on our national debt! Just fancy the users of these roads being mulcted to an enormous extent in order to pay interest on our national debt! The national debt of Canada was created for the benefit of the entire population, and this entire population must contribute to the interest on that national debt instead of merely a very limited number of shippers of freight over the Government roads. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when an increase of twenty-five or thirty per cent was granted in freight rates a couple of years ago, it was generally contended that the Canadian Pacific did not require any increase in rates, that their earnings were quite sufficient to take care of tneir operating expenses and pay a handsome interest on capital. As a matter of fact you, Sir, know that the Canadian Pacific under its charter is allowed to pay 10 per cent on its capital stock, but it was contended that the lame ducks-the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and other lines-were unable to earn sufficient on those rates to make a living, and consequently an increase in rates was granted to all lines including the Canadian Pacific to enable these roads to increase their earnings. You will recall, Sir. that it was provided that if the Canadian Pacific earned more than ten percent under these new rates the balance was to be returned to the public treasury by way of taxation. Let us assume that the Canadian Pacific is a perfectly honourable and decent corporation; I am not here to say a word against the Canadian Pacific, or to impugn its honour; it is a magnificently managed organization, and has rendered splendid service to the Dominion. Its officers are high-class men. For its new president -I have the highest possible esteem. But it can be readily understood how, in connection with a provision of that kind, accountants could juggle figures and charge up to capital account a very large amount, or how expenses for upkeep, replacement and other things might be deducted from the amount the company was able to earn by virtue of the increase in rates. I am afraid-I repeat what I said this afternoon, because there are more members listening to me now, and this is one of the most important questions that will come before the House this session -that although these increases went into effect two years ago or more the Canadian Pacific has not yet paid the amount which it should pay to the Government, as was

the expectation and understanding of Parliament when the increase was granted.
Having demonstrated that the Canadian Pacific should not under any circumstances be allowed an increase in freight and passenger rates, I went on to deal this afternoon with the case of the nationally-owned railways. I think it is absolutely absurd and highly improper for Mr. Hanna, the president of the nationally-owned system, to take the position he is taking before the public, of advocating that an increase be granted. I have always had, and still have, a very high regard for Mr. Hanna's integrity and ability as a railway operator, but I question his ethics and wisdom in following the course he is pursuing. The question I dealt with this afternoon was this: The Canadian National system of railways is the result of the most colossal folly and series .of blunders ever perpetrated in any country by its public men. I am not going t'o place blame particularly here or there, but I did single out one Government this afternoon for special mention. We have the National Transcontinental railway, which is a piece of the greatest folly ever carried out in any country. I have given the matter considerable study, and it was my conclusion that the Transcontinental from Moncton to Winnipeg should be abandoned. The argument was presented to me that vested interests have been created, that a large population has gone in there, and perhaps it would be a hardship to these people if that portion of the road was abandoned. We may take it that that country will develop as the years go by, and it might be better under all the circumstances of the case that the road should be operated in the best possible manner and maintained in some reasonable degree of efficiency. The people of this country will understand that, inasmuch as the road was the result of the folly of public men, endorsed by the people itself, and inasmuch as it has been unloaded on the country and is now under the public ownership system, it ought not to be expected that rates should be charged upon it sufficient to pay operating expenses and interest on capital.
In addition to the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, the uneconomic portion of which extends from Edmonton to the Pacific coast, you have the British Columbia end of the Canadian Northern and you also have a considerable mileage in Ontario belonging to the Canadian Northern. All these uneconomic thousands of miles of road are included with the whole in our public ownership system. The eco-

nomic end would he the old Grand Trunk, a portion of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and a portion of the Canadian Northern which runs through very good territory, and perhaps a portion of the Intercolonial.
In my judgment, this great system should be divided into the economic and uneconomic portions and separate accounts should be kept. It seems to me utter folly that an increase in rates should be granted in order to make up the deficit on the uneconomic portions. These uneconomic portions constitute a vast mileage. They are the inheritance of this country from the folly of those public men, endorsed by the country itself. That being so, let the country take its medicine, let the uneconomic portion be separated from the economic portion, and whatever the loss is let it be written off against profit and loss. That we should be asked at this stage to increase the freight. and passenger rates on our railway system in order to pay operating expenses and interest on cost is, in my judgment, a proposition that should not for a minute be listened to.
I said this afternoon, and I repeat, that we have embarked upon the public ownership of railways. The idea of public ownership is 'all right in itself if we have the right kind of public ownership. If the people of Canada had built a smaller mileage than that which we now have- some 22,000 miles-and this system had been built upon economic lines, talcing in those portions of the country where there was a reasonable expectation of revenue and accommodating large settlements, we would have had the right kind of public ownership. But almost half-at least one-third of our system is uneconomic and it is well that this country and Parliament, when we are starting out with this system, should know the conditions under which we are embarking. We may expect in two or three years the people to hold up their hands in horror and say: "Public ownership is a vast failure; we never should have embarked upon it."
It should be remembered that we have not embarked upon this system, but that public ownership has been forced upon by the folly of our public men and the folly of the people at large. Let us divide the economic from the uneconomic portions and let the country suffer the loss whatever the loss might be of the uneconomic system. Why should the people, living by the tens of thousands along the lines served by the economic system, be taxed to pay the delicit of the uneconomic system? The pro-

.position is utter folly. and should not be listened to for a moment. I have no apology to offer for repeating what I said this afternoon, because I believe this is a subject of vital importance to the people of Canada. We must start right if we are going to make a success of public ownership. We must not have it discredited at its inception. There is one other important reason that suggests itself to me here why we should not allow any increase of freight rates at the present time. The arbitration in connection with the Grand Trunk will soon sit. If you allow this increase in freight rates, the arbitrator on behalf of the Grand Trunk will put forward the claim that they are handing over a railway to the people of Canada which is making handsome earnings at the present time. That is a very great risk which we should not think of taking.
I am not sure what the functions or powers of the Railway Board are, or whether it is able to grant an increase without reference to the Government. If it is I think the Government should intervene and that -some steps ought to be taken to save the country from this folly. It is not only the $100,000,000 or $150,000,000 that will be granted in increased rates to these two great railway systems that will present the real trouble. Large, colossal, vast as that amount is, and burdensome as 'it will be to the people, it may be borne, but the result will be that it will enable merchants from one end of the country to the other to increase the -cost of their commodities. They will say: "Freight rates have gone up; therefore the cost of commodities must be increased/' and the result will be, if these increased freight rates are permitted, that there will be further grave agitation in the matter of the high cost of living, and it will cost Canada $300,000,000 or $400,000,000 before she is through with it. It is too grave a matter to be embarked upon lightly. I repeat the warning to the Government that they should carefully consider [DOT]this question and take every precaution to see that this proposed increase in freight rates is refused.
Just one other point, and it was brought .out by my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) this afternoon in connection with the speech from the vThrone. Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that if such an unlikely thing should happen as that the Government should accept the amendment proposed by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and go to the country. Then, suppose that this so-called
Liberal party came back with a majority behind them. Just think what would happen. You recall what happened in this House a few months ago in the Fall session, when this -Government, backed py this party, undertook to acquire the Grand Trunk railway.
To operate the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental railway without the old Grand Trunk was a piece of folly, something impossible, because the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Transcontinental were built to co-ordinate and to co-operate with that system; and when the opportunity offered, this Government, in order to ensure, at least to some extent, the possibility of a measure of success in public ownership decided to acquire the old Grand Trunk railway. And how was this Government met when that proposition came down? Why, it was virulently opposed by the party that sits to your ieft, Sir, and they even proposed a commission of inquiry to sidetrack the project; they had recourse to every possible expedient in order to block the passage through Parliament of the Bill to acquire the Grand Trunk. Having been brought up in the Liberal party I thought that public ownership was one of its chief planks, and it was with amazement that I found them opposed to the acquisition of the Grand Trunk railway and that they were opposed generally to the principle of public ownership. Now, suppose the unlikely should happen? Suppose the Government should say, " All right we will go to the country," and by some fluke the party on the other side came back, what position would the country be in? Could it rely upon that party administering this public-owned system with'honesty of purpose, efficiency or in any manner in the public interest? I am sure, Sir, all will agree that if you expect success in any undertaking those who manage that undertaking must believe in it and must throw their hearts into the management of it. With the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) I cordially agree that it would be most unfortunate if the administration of this public owmed system of railways should pass out of the hands of the present administration before it has been thoroughly co-ordinated, thoroughly organized and placed in such a position that there is no likelihood of failure.
Before I sit down I wish to briefly refer to tw'o or three matters that arose out of the debate on the Address. I share very cordially the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend from Parkdale (Mr. Mowat) who is an old Liberal, and comes of prime Liberal

stock. That hon. gentleman said that since his advent to this House as a supporter of the Union Government-a Government composed of the best elements of both of the old parties-he had found himself abundantly satisfied. I want to say as an old Liberal that I* have never sat behind any Government, nor have I ever observed any Government-whether it called itself Liberal or Conservative-for the last thirty or thirty-five years that in my judgment was more progressive, or was even more radical, than this Government has been. It has- not only in my case but in the case of many others-deserved, but compelled my support. When it made an honest effort to deal with public ownership, and there was no other course it was able to pursue, I had no difficulty in agreeing with it and supporting it on that point.
Now let us look at the achievements of the Government-and I am not going to dwell upon the record in detail as the subject was thoroughly covered by the Acting Prime Minister. The Government, at least, dealt efficiently and satisfactorily with the war. That was the great issue when the Government was elected in 1917, and the war has been won. It is true the war cost a great deal of money, and involved the lives of 60,000 of the flower of our race, but even that was not too great a price to pay for liberty. But the war was won and the Government did all that could be expected of it in that direction. We have also had from the Government women's franchise. We have had the Civil Service, under a commission, removed entirely from the vicious system that prevailed under the old regime. So far as my observation goes there is no patronage in the Civil Service to-day. And there is no patronage in connection with the awarding of contracts as there used to be. Then prohibition was made effective in Canada by virtue of the conduct of the Government. Further, there has been control of prices and accompanying it the creation of a Board of Commerce, and while many may be ready to sneer, I want to say that a great deal has been accomplished in that connection. We have had, in connection with the adjustment of war problems, the demobilization of 500,000 troops, soldiers' civil reestablishment and vocational training, the granting of pensions and the care of returned soldiers. We have had the inauguration of a housing scheme, the establishment of a Health Department, the adoption of public ownership of railways, the consolidation of our Railway Act, and the passage of a bankruptcy law. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this was a very fair pro-[Mr. Richardson. 1
gramme and a very fair record of accomplishment for the time that this Government has been in office.
There are many other questions that should, and doubtless will, be dealt with, but just why there should be a declaration in favour of a general election at the present time I for one cannot understand. I do not believe there is any public demand throughout the country for a general elec- ' tion. I believe with the ex-Minister of Finance, that the people who do the thinking, the people who have the interest of this country most deeply at heart, are anxious to see this Government carry on. I think with my hon. friend that if you were to have a general election you would not have stability of Government for five, ten oi fifteen years. What you would likely have would be Government by groups and a disturbing succession of administrations. It is^ perfectly true that there is a good deal of unrest throughout the Dominion, but that is inevitable after war and it is inevitable' during war time.
Sometimes I have stood by and listened to groups of people denouncing all governments-denouncing municipal, provincial and Dominion governments, denouncing everything that is-and the manner in which that denunciation was carried on was so insensate I could not help thinking of the experience of Samson who pulled down the pillars of the temple and in so doing perished himself in the catastrophe. These thousands of people throughout the land who indulge in general and wholesale criticism of everything that exists have no conception of what their influence is leading to. It might easily result as disastrously as did the act of Samson; it might pull down the constitution of our country. Those who rock the boat in perilous and dangerous times are a menace to the community. In my judgment nothing could occur that would be more likely to disturb the national craft and bring chaos in the country than a general election at the present time. It might be desirable in a year or two. I believe the country is progressing in the direction of settling down, and when that time comes then let us have a dissolution-and let the best men, or the best group, or the best party, win.
I wish to offer an observation or two on the same lines as my hon. friend the member for Parkdale. He spoke of the desirability of a rapprochement with the province of Quebec, because it is charged mat there are no representatives from the great province of Quebec in this Government. It is true there is one member of the Gov-

ernment from Quebec who sits in the Senate, but it is quite patent to all that that province is not represented as it should be in the country's administration.
I could not help reflecting as to whose fault it was. On the appeal to the country in 1917 the verdict was so overwhelming in favour of Union Government pledged to carry on the war, that I would think nobody, no matter from what province he comes, would care to criticize or question that verdict. If the province of Quebec is not represented in the Government, it is the fault of the representatives, or, perhaps, carrying it further, of the people of that province. But surely that is no fault of the overwhelming majority of the people who voted in favour of Union Government. . Now, I was rather surprised at the retort of my hon. friend the member for St. Hya-cinthe (Mr. Gauthier) to the olive branch held out by the member for Parkdale (Mr. Mowat). He spoke vehemently of Quebec waiting for her "hour." One would almost fancy from his tone that Quebec was waiting for her revenge.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Then I would be
the last one to attribute any such sentiment ot my hon. friend, because there is a special bond of friendship between him and me. He came out to Manitoba to assist me in an election contest upon one occasion, and I have always had a special regard for him. Consequently, I am delighted to hear from hon. gentlemen that his words had no such meaning. However, I noticed in the Montreal Gazette this morning that the Progressive Club of Montreal had by resolution repudiated the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe.
In my judgment Quebec has proved a great bulwark in our national structure. She is sane, generqus, chivalrous and courteous, and I do not believe that her people will ever countenance group government. Quebec, no matter what may be the sentiments of many of her representatives on the question of the Tariff, is in my judgment, in favour of fiscal stability, and I do not believe that she will ever stand by and see the industrial structure of the country ruined. I have always looked upon Quebec as one of the sanest members of Confederation, and I am satisfied that reason will prevail in that province, and if her good people do not in their wisdom see fit to take a hand in the Government at the present time, the occasion when she will cannot
be distant. There will be no secession. These two races are joined together for weal or woe, and what God has joined together no man in this country will dare attempt to put asunder. I believe that wiser and more conciliatory counsels will prevail-in fact, I believe they are beginning to prevail in that province at the present time. The war is over. " Let the dead past bury its dead." We cannot make things different now, the only thing we can do is to accept what has happened. There is a great work ahead of this great nation, and the only way in which it can be properly accomplished is for all our people to unite and press forward to the goal of success. In that result, whether the co-operation of the good people of Quebec may be delayed for a longer or a shorter time, it is my conviction that Quebec will play her part, and it is gratifying to observe symptoms here and there that her people are themselves anxious that they should be represented in the administration of our national affairs.
I want to make a brief reference to my hon. friend the member for Marquette (Mr-Crerar). Like the ex-Minister of Finance (.Sir Thomas White), I have a warm personal regard for the hon. member. When Union Government was about to be formed I made it my business to see influential members of the old' Administration and urged very strongly that the member for Marquette should be included in the Cabinet. Whether or not my advice had any weight with the powers that be, he was included, and I am not quite so sure but that my advice may have had some weight. I have followed the hon. gentleman's course of action very carefully both while in office and since his retirement therefrom. I have generally regarded him as a man of blunt honesty and integrity, trying to do the best he can according to his lights. I think, however, with the ex-Minister of Finance, that my hon. friend. is not quite so sure just where he is getting to on this tariff question. I am an older man than he, and for his benefit I may tell him that I went through the same experience that he is now going through. I was brought up in the strict Liberal school at the feet of the Hon. George Brown, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie and others, and I believed in free trade. I had the "bug" good and strong, Mr. Speaker. I thought the entire tariff was a curse to the country and should be wiped out. In fact, I had listened to my old friend Bob Watson and a lot of other so-called Liberal barnstormers through the country and come to the conclusion that the

Tory party was a pretty bad aggregation. Running a newspaper as I did, I had a busy time keeping out of gaol when speaking my mind about the members of that party. I thought when my good friends the "so-called " Liberals-I suppose I had better use that term-came to office we would have every vestige of protection wiped from the tariff. That was the promise. Consequently, as a young man, I stumped my riding on a coal-oil can, practically telling the farmers that they were being bled white, and that if we could just get our party into office it would be all smooth sailing, for there would be no more tariff, they would have their boots and clothing, their cotton and wool free of duty, and instead of trading a bushel of wheat for a dozen of bananas or a gallon of coal-oil, they would get their coal-oil for fifteen cents a gallon and their bananas for about twelve cents a dozen. Imagine my disappointment, Mr. Speaker, when I came down to Ottawa to find that some of the leaders whom I thought quite as sincere as my friend the present leader of the Opposition, had changed face on the tariff. The question was not whether the duty on agricultural implements should be wiped out altogether because it was' bearing very heavily on the farmers. On the contrary an emissary-to be frank, it was L. M. Jones himself-stayed with me nearly all Sunday to get me to agree to an increase in that duty, representing that the Government was willing. That is really what I ,was up against. It was not a reduction, it was an increase. If we pass by the 33J per cent British preferential reduction, much of which was afterwards recalled, the total reduction made by our friends was 77-100 of 1 per cent. I remember being in the House when the present Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) analyzed the tariff and affirmed without contradiction that that was the total amount of the reduction.
Well, it set me thinking, and I had a pretty uneasy time. The late Dr. Landerkin and many of the lest of "the boys" would tap me on the back and say: "Young man, stand by your party." Well, I did try to, but it got too hot for me, and finally I differed from the party. I had a pretty hard time of it then, because I was told: " We have redeemed our tariff pledges; you are not a good Liberal and should resign; you have all that was promised you." I was expected not only to believe that, but to be pleased and to smile over it. To me it was a deep disappointment, because I

had been up and down the country for years denouncing the tariff. I mention this particularly for the benefit of my good friend the member for Marquette (Hon. Mr. Crerar), who has started out to lead a party. I myself once started out to lead a party in the Northwest, but I did not get very far.
I noticed from my hon. friend's speech that it is beginning to dawn on him that the tariff cannot be-or, I should say, will not be-wiped out. I suppose it could, if you could elect a sufficient number of free traders, but the difficulty is that however sincere the member for Marquette may be in his desire to eliminate -a great many evil things from the tariff-and I am heartily with him in that-he will find that the people generally will not follow.
Some of the members on the other side from the province of Quebec who applaud heartily when my hon. fiiend speaks about having the tariff lowered sat behind a Government that practised protection to the hilt, and if put to it to-day when their political existence was at stake, would do so again. That is the insincerity of the whol* business. Of course, my hon. friend did say that he was not prepared to wipe it out at one fell swoop-I think that was his expression, if not, it was the substance of it. I am heartily in sympathy with my hon. friend's proposal that the duties should be removed from the implements of production. . During the last twenty-five or thirty years I have not changed my views on this question. I would like to see the duties removed from the implements of production. I do not believe that it is possible at this time, owing to the condition of the country and to our international relations, to amend |he tariff to the satisfaction of the strongest tariff reformer. So far as my influence and my judgment go, I am just as heartily in favour of a reduction of the tariff as is the member for Marquette. I have had a little more experience in connection with it than he has, and I know something about the tremendous difficulties that will meet him and will meet every strong tariff reformer at every turn of the road. But I repeat that so far as his campaign for having the duties removed from the implements of production goes, he has my heartiest sympathy and I will endeavour to assist in any reasonable way. The Government itself will probably so revise the tariff as to meet in a reasonable measure the aspirations of the West. I do not, however, like my hon. friend, look for such a revision at one fell swoop as will satisfy

all people. But I want to say that probably his entry into politics as the leader of a group will have a very good effect in this country, because it is an excellent thing for a number of people or a party to forge strongly ahead in the direction of lower tariffs; it cannot fail to have its effect upon those who are inclined to go the other way.


Mr. C. A. GAUVREAU (Temiscouata) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I should have abstained from joining in the debate on the Address, had not the Acting Prime Minister answered as he did to my question concerning Mr. Albert Sevigny.
I considered that the occasion was favourable for discussing that matter, and that the time had come to raise the question before its final settlement. But, Mr. Speaker, before broaching that subject, let me confess that the speech from the Throne at this session is a document quite in keeping with the Lenten season which is now on.
Never has anything so poor from the legislative viewpoint been submitted to the consideration of the House. It is true that this poor bill of fare comprises a joint of magnificent proportions: the Franchise Bill. However, while ignorant of its contents and judging solely from the record of its promoters I well foresee that only those members of Parliament favoured with the strongest constitution will be able to swallow that measure, while they must have the stomach of an ostrich to digest it.
In unison with my friend from Rimouski (Mr. d'Anjou), I raise my voice to protest in the name of the French race, against the forsaking of that admirable practice of calling on a French-speaking member to be the seconder of the Address in answer to the speech from the Throne.
From the earliest days, that ancient usage has always been held in honour in this House, and had it not been for the advent to power of a Union Government, the outcome of the wholesale theft of ballots, that practice would still hold good.
But, there is nothing to surprise us coming from an administration which has ignored the Constitution as well as old traditions and we would wonder how it is that they did not repeal that usage by Order in Council, as they have done for so many other things.
As a consolation we may reflect that in so doing they have saved our beautiful language the humiliating task of defending something which is indefensible-namely: the policy of this Government.
True, the Senate has been privileged as compared with the House of Commons, since the hon. gentlemen of that High Chamber were afforded the opportunity of listening to an eloquent speaker, the honourable Mr. Chapais. But there is satisfaction to be derived from the fact that the appointment of the Honourable Mr. Chapais to the Senate, is in itself an humiliation for the present Government. The Honourable Mr. 'Chapais was a recognized adversary of conscription; it is even stated that a year or two ago, he rejected indignantly an offer emanating from the then ministers of a seat in ^he Senate, as a protest against the almost devilish Bill of conscription which had been brought up before Parliament, not with a view to help win the war but for the purpose of stirring up in the English-speaking provinces an ill-feeling against Quebec.
The Government have thus partially confessed its blunder, by appointing to the Senate the very man who openly opposed conscription a few years ago.
But, Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect of this question to which I cannot refrain from calling the attention of this House. It is this: Mr. Chapais' appointment to the Senate consecrates a return as it were to the old practice of the double mandate, which we all believed to have been discarded forever.
I blame the Government for allowing Mr. Chapais, an accomplished and cultured scholar as he is, to occupy at the same time the position of legislative councillor for Quebec and that of Senator at Ottawa.'
We heard the other day, the hon. member foi Frontenac championing in this House the cause of the hon. Postmaster General. And involuntarily the well-known line penned by the poet occurred to my mind and I started exclaiming:
"How into pure gold was the vile metal transmuted ?"
Comment en un or pur le vil metal s'est-il change?
I shall not pick up a quarrel with the Postmaster General about that. It is the crowning honour for the hon. minister to have his cause championed by the member for Frontenac, the relentless slanderer of the French race in this House, and with such a certificate, the minister may give up his senatorship and have himself returned to the House in any constituency, but never in the province of Quebec.
In Ontario perhaps? We harbour strong doubts about it.



But referring to the Postmaster General puts me in mind of his former nationalist and unionist colleague, Mr. Albert Sevigny, who aims at supplanting Mr. A. D. De Celles, as librarian of the Parliamentary library. Mr. De Celles is in all the vigour of manhood, after running a brilliant career in which so many gifted writers of the younger generation like to follow him as a master and a leader of thought.
Wherefore should Mr. De Celles be shelved, the more so as he does not ask for superannuation? Why should the people's money be squandered to no purpose? For, should Mr. Sevigny be appointed librarian, he will be paid the same salary as is paid to Mr. De Celles, but moreover a pension must be paid to the latter, who is still able to discharge his duties, as he has done so far with such great credit to the country and to our literature.
Has Mr. Sevigny the requisite qualifications to fill the position of librarian? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker.
An obscure lawyer, a second rate politician, a spiritless Minister of the Crown, and a Speaker of this House, with all that is involved in the disgraceful scenes which are a matter of public notoriety, has Mr. Sevigny produced a single work which may show that he is entitled and qualified to fill the responsible position of librarian of this Parliament?
With all those who knew Mr. Sevigny, I answer: No; and the Government should look twice before making the proposed change.
At this stage of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in English so that the ministers at their seat may understand what I want to say about Mr. Sevigny and the position of Librarian.
I warn the Government that if Mr. Sevigny is placed at the Library, when the Liberals come into power and after the next election, we would be at your right, Sir, I, for one, and many like me, will insist upon our leaders to cancel that nomination and have the position filled by one that deserves such a position and can show the record of a man and not the record of a Victrola.
Mr. Speaker, the Government is giving a trial to State ownership of railways. So far, the experiment has not proved a tremendous success, and if we are to believe the latest reports, we are going to face a deficit of twenty million dollars.
And no wonder, if we are to judge from the way the business is managed. We had in the city of Riviere-du-Loup splendid lo-

eomotive and car shops which had cost over half a million dollars and in which nearly two hundred men worked successfully.
With a view to accommodating the engine works and the employees, the city council of Riviere-du-Loup had municipalized electricity and the water-power, and shouldered a heavy debt.
But when the locomotive and engine works had to be accommodated at St. Malo, in the interest of the National Transcontinental and the Northern Canadian, the Joliette works were closed, 25 machinists were removed from the Riviere-du-Loup shops and 105 men were ordered away from the latter place, to be transferred to St. Malo from now up to May 1.
The removal of a hundred employees, many of whom with families, that means a loss of over 500 people to riviere-du-Loup. Shops are degraded, a city is ruined, a minority of tax-payers are staggering under a heavy debt, -which to a large degree has been created in the interest of the shops and employees removed from the city; a whole division is disorganized, everything is thrown into confusion, and now people wonder that so many railway accidents occur on the Northern Canadian and such disorder in the administration is prevailing.
In view of such mismanagement by the Canadian Northern Commission, which had pledged itself not to interfere with the interests of Riviere-du-Loup, all that remains for us to do is to register our protest today, to protest again when the Railway Estimates come before the House, and to go on protesting, until justice is done to the city of Riviere-du-Loup.
Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the leader of the Opposition on having brought down the amendment which we are requested to consider. It was about time to reassure public opinion, poisoned as it was, every day, by newspapers devoted to the ministry. We could read, every day, that the Liberals were eager to go to the people. Well, this amendment will bring that legend to an end, and the public, anxious to get rid of the incapable men by whom we are governed, will feel grateful to the Liberal party for having so gallantly demanded an election.
In concluding my remarks, Sir, I may point out, as the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe has said, that the province of Quebec is biding its time, not for purposes of revenge, for we, in the province of Que-


Mr. ROBERT JAMES MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I unfortunately have not sufficient facility in the French language to follow completely the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Gau-vreau), but I must say that I am sometimes struck with the fact that there are people in Quebec and people in Ontario who think too much of their respective provinces and forget the Dominion of Canada as a whole. I personally have and always have had, and I hope always will have, the most friendly feelings for the people of Quebec, and I think those from that province who know me understand that I have those feelings. Rut I have no sympathy-I am not referring to my hon. friend (Mr. Gauvreau)

for any man from Quebec who is an extremist any more than I have sympathy for the man from Ontario who is an extremist.
The bon. member made a statement regarding the appointment of a librarian. I do not know Mr. S-evigny; I have no knowledge of him whatever; I have never met him; but I take it from the remarks of the previous speaker that, if it is necessary to have Mr. DeCelles, who is a personal friend of mine, and for whom I have the highest esteem, replaced

and I trust that will not be necessary, because I think a great deal of him-my hon. friend would object to Mr. Sevigny receiving the appointment. He did not give his grounds for his objection, but I sincerely hope that he is not objecting merely on the grounds of differences of political opinion.
. I should like to join with those other speakers who preceded me in offering my felicitations to the mover and the seconder of the Address. It is true that hon. gentlemen to whom the honour falls of moving and seconding the Address are expected, as a rule, to speak in generalities; but when the generalities are placed upon such a high plane, and when they are full of so many ideals to which we should all aspire as .were the speeches of the hon. gentlemen a few days ago, we may well rejoice that such .capable members have been chosen to move and second the Address.
I should also like to join with those who .congratulated ourselves on having the privilege of being members of this Parliament [DOT]when we moved from the old Museum building into this magnificent edifice. While I join in the congratulations which have been showered upon the architect of this building, I should at the same time, even at the danger of lese majeste upon architecture, like to sympathise with those hon. gentlemen who occupy the thirty or .forty feet of this chamber furthest removed .from you, Mr. Speaker, because when any one sits down in that thirty or forty feet .of this chamber straining his ears to try- and often vainly-to catch the faintest echoes of some of the whispered conversations which are carried across the floor of this House, he realises that in the construction of this chamber utility was more .or less sacrificed to beauty. When I first came into this chamber the other day and sat at this end of it, I was reminded by the distance that you, Sir, were from myself and the difficulty that I had in realising that it was you instead of one of the page boys sitting in the Speaker's chair, of a little incident that happened to me some years ago in the city of New York. I had walked into the rotunda of a hotel and there met a friend of mine who had the previous night visited the Metropolitan Opera House for the first time. He had paid four or five dollars for a seat in a rear balcony to hear Caruso and Farrar, and in telling me something of the distances of the building, he said, disgustedly: "Honest to George, I was a quarter of a mile from the stage." I thought of that incident when I came into this chamber the other day, because the distance seemed almost as great. Therefore, while I congratulate the architect on the beautiful Gothic lines of the building, I sympathize with the hon. members who sit in that thirty or forty feet of which I spoke, and if I may offer any suggestion to the powers that be, I would suggest that they

.arrange the seating so that the members of whom I speak may not be entirely excluded from participating in the proceedings of this House.
I have listened with a good deal of interest to the discussion so far in this debate on the Address. As is usual on an .occasion like this, almost every subject worthy of discussion has been touched upon, and, I think, despite criticism, that is as it should be, because there is no other time so suitable for discussing a variety of subjects as the early days of a session, when members have an opportunity of offering suggestions to the Government and to this Parliament. I have no intention of giving any long dissertation on any of the subjects which have been discussed; in fact, I shall occupy very few minutes of the time of the House and shall discuss only two or three, or four at most, of the points touched upon in the discussion of the speech from the Throne.
First, with regard to the amendment offered by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). That amendment in brief is to the effect that the Government should pass a franchise Bill and then bring about a dissolution and go to the country. The leader of the Opposition has been accused of playing politics in this amendment inasmuch as it is claimed that he has no fear of it carrying in this House, and therefore the question is not to be put to trial. I do not accuse him of that, because i't is a disputed question whether or not we should go to the country at the present time. I think there are arguments on both sides of the question. However, I have discussed the question in my own constituency with many men who were followers of this Government, Liberals and Conservatives, supporters and friends of mine; and most of those with whom I discussed the question thought that we should not go to the country at the present time. One man who has always been a Liberal, and who I think will support the leader of the Opposition in the next election, expressed himself so strongly as to say that if we went to the country at the present time it would be an unpatriotic act. I must confess that when I hear the argument of patriotism on a question of this kind, I think that possibly there was something in what Dr. Johnson said. But I mention these things simply to show that there are great differences of opinion on this question, and as far as I have been able to gather, the majority opinion is against, an election at present.
iMr. Manion.]
One thing about the amendment that has struck me as rather strange is this: It is in effect a vote of want of confidence, yet proposes that after the Government is given a vote of want of confidence by this House it should still go on and legislate, and put on the statute books of this country -a new Franchise Act. That seems to me a little strange, because if - a vote of want of confidence were given, the Government would likely dissolve at once and would not attempt to put any legislation on the statute books. To my mind, irrespective of what has been said by other members, the two main arguments against the amendment are these: First, the Franchise Act is not, as implied in the amendment, the only important business to come before the House this session. There are a number of other very important matters which I think should be dealt with before this Parliament dissolves or even prorogues. One important matter that should be dealt with this session is an increase in pensions for disabled soldiers, and more particularly an increase in pensions for dependents of soldiers who lost their lives at the front. In the last session of this Parliament, the Special Committee which was appointed on Be-esta'blishment, brought in a report that the mothers and children of soldiers who had died at the front were inadequately pensioned, and yet so far the Government and this Parliament have done nothing to make those pensions adequate. To my mind, that is a very important matter, and I do not think the House should prorogue before dealing with it.	[DOT]
Then there is the question of shipping, and the question of the Civil Service Act. There ,are 60,000 Civil Service employees in this country, and according to the press they .are very much dissatisfied that classification has not been adopted or disposed of in some way. Then there is another matter on which I think this Government has been lax, and on which I hope they will bring down a policy very soon, and that is the development of our natural resources-a subject which I have brought up on a number of occasions in this House. Perhaps that is not as pressing as a number of other subjects, hut I have named two or three, in addition to the new Franchise Act, which should be dealt with by 'the House as promptly as possible.
Another reason why I do not support this amendment is that, to my mind, it is a vote of want of confidence in the Government, iand I have had no particular reason for thinking I should vote want of confi-

dence in this Administration. Political life at any time is not distinguished for the gratitude shown 'to its participants, and so far as I -am concerned, I have no desire to be one of those to say to the members of this Government: Here are your hats, and there is the door. I feel they have done their best, honestly and fairly to give good Government to this country, and I was pleased the dther day to hear the Acting Prime Minister (Sir George Foster) make the statement, and I believe sincerely, and it was repeated this afternoon by the ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) with equal sincerity, I believe, that this Government has given to Canada the best government it ever had. Another thing that struck me when the Acting Prime Minister made that statement was this: So far as I remember, in the political life of this country there has' hardly ever been a government of either political colour of which some member, whether rightly or wrongly, has not been accused of grafting or dishonesty, but I have yet to hear of any shadow of accusation of graft or dishonesty levelled against any member of this Government. I have, therefore, no apologies to make lor voting against this amendment, and no apologies to make that I have so far given an honest and fair support to this Government. At the same time, while I am not at all convinced that there is the urgent necessity for an election which is implied in the amendment of the leader of the Opposition. I think that after this session of Parliament it is the duty of this Government to give very serious consideration to the claims that the Union Government has fulfilled the purposes for which it was elected, and that it is time for the people to be given a chance at the polls to elect a group of men, perhaps this same group, or a different one, to handle the affairs of this country. I am not absolutely convinced that the election that is spoken of in the amendment should be indefinitely postponed, because, after all, in a democracy the people must have some say in running the country. Therefore, I repeat, the Government should give serious consideration to that question, and if they feel that the demand for an election is as widespread as it is claimed to be by some, it should be their duty to think of going to the country and giving the people an opportunity to express themselves at the polls.
Regarding the Franchise Act, I think two sentences will suffice, and I think they will cover pretty well what most members on both sides of the House feel regarding a
franchise Bill. First, it should he fair and honest, and should be based on sound Canadianism; and the machinery for operating the Act should be as fool-proof and as crook-proof as possible. Furthermore, 1 think the Government should keep faith with any men and any people to whom they have given a promise, so long as those people have neither been disloyal nor done anything detrimental to good Canadian citizenship.
Now I am going to tread on dangerous ground, particularly for a young member like myself; I refer to the tariff. We have listened in this House for some days now to views upon the tariff, some of which were extreme on opposite sides. We have heard the extreme free traders of the West, or one or two of them, and a few extreme protectionists from the East. I am of the opinion that the sane moderate minded people of* this country, and I think that means the majority, will not allow this question to be settled either by extreme protectionists of the East or by extreme free traders of the West. I believe that they will ultimately demand that a thorough investigation be made of this question and that the findings of that investigation be utilized as far as possible in framing a scientific tariff of moderate proportions. In that connection there are three principles which appeal to me. First, any industry of which there is no hope that it will ultimately get to the stage where it does not need to be pap-fed, the stage where it can compete with industries of like nature in other parts of the world, should not be given protection. No further attempt should be made to build it up. The fact that there are a number of industries in this country which have been highly protected for forty or fifty years, and which still claim to be infant industries, is one of the reasons why a great many of the moderate-minded people of this country feel a little disgust with high protection. The second principle which appeals to me is that if fifteen per cent of protection is enough to assist a certain industry to compete with the same industry in the United States, there is no reason for giving an industry such as this thirty-five or forty per cent protection. If you give too high a protection to an industry such as this, you simply eliminate completely any competition from other countries, you enable the owners of the industry to overcharge the people of this country, and you may give rise to dangerous combinations in restraint of trade. In other words: A very high tariff

gives no revenue to the country. This was well illustrated the other day in an item that I read from Windsor or Sarnia. The city being very close to Detroit, the people went across the border to get a good many of their supplies. Due to the fact that fifteen or sixteen per cent has been deducted from the value of our dollar by exchange and this amount being added to the existing thirty-five per cent of protection on a great many things that come into Ithis country, there was a practically prohibitive tariff and it cut down the customs house receipts at that port by two-thirds of what they had been before. There was only one-third the quantity of goods being imported. This shows conclusively that a high enough tariff excludes goods altogether and gives no revenue; whereas, with a moderate tariff you would receive a certain amount of revenue as well as afford a certain amount of protection. The third principle is that your tariff on luxuries may be as high as you wish but your tariff on the necessaries of life should be as low as possible.
There is only one other subject that I wish to touch upon, very briefly, and that is the question of Canada's status in the League of Nations. Recently the hon. the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) and the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighten) have been making a number of speeches in the country that I think ought to appeal to Canadians. Canada's magnificent war record, the fact that she entered the lists among the very first to fight Prussianism and the fact that she gave more lives in the cause of freedom than did the United States, has not prevented some senators of the United States from suggesting that Canada should take second place to a number of unimportant countries, more particularly some Central American and South American republics. Here is the list of a few of the countries to which Canada is asked to take second place: Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, Haiti, Liberia, Portugal, Peru, Denmark and the Kingdom of Siam. These are only a few that I might mention but they are much less important countries than Canada, they made very much less sacrifice than Canada, and in fact many of them made no sacrifice in the war whatever. I believe that the Canadian people are not in any mood to give u,p any of the attributes of nationhood which they won with the lifeblood of their sons.
The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) has made the statement that in the near future there will be an Imperial Conference, and the Acting Prime

Minister (Sir George Foster) stated the other day that it might be held in Canada; at which Conference the status of the selfgoverning dominions will be decided. Canada will have representatives at that Conference. There are two axioms which appeal to me as a native-born Canadian and which I think should be remembered by those representatives. One of those axioms is that under no circumstances must they agree to any arrangement which will lessen the autonomy, or self-governing powers, of this country. The second is that no great change in the constitutional relations of this country in connection with the other nations of the Empire or of the world shall be made without proper consultation with the Parliament of Canada and perhaps with the whole people of Canada.
For, Sir, Canadians are proud of the high position won by the magnificent services and immense sacrifices of their men at the front; they are jealous of that position which they must guard if they are to fulfil their destiny of building up on the northern half of this continent a great Canadian nation.


Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed with great interest the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the Throne, and it is my privilege 'to congratulate both the *mover (Mr. Cronyn) and the seconder (Mr. McGregor) . on the part which they have taken in it. The hon. mover has given this House much good advice but I am afraid his efforts to convince the supporters of the Government of his good intentions will have little effect. The hon. member advises us " not to fall into the mortal error of mistaking feeling for thought or of substituting mere passion for argument."
Into this new and beautiful building we members of the House of Commons should come with new ideas and never should we express views the adoption of which would not contribute to the welfare of the Canadian people. Since Confederation this Dominion of ours for some reason unknown to me; has been slow in its progress, except for a certain period. We have had great statesmen, we have great resources; our lands, our forests, our mines and our fisheries are equal to any in the whole world. We have developed to a certain extent many of our natural resources, we have built railways, and developed our harbours; our transportation facilities are equal to the demand to handle in a comparatively satisfactory manner the products of the country. What is wrong? The policy of the present Government? We are asking

the Government to-day to make an appeal to the people of this country. My hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) has faith in the Canadian people and we are asking for an appeal to them which will be refused, I am sure, by the supporters of the Government. We can trust tire people. If we do not do so we have no right to be here.
There is great unrest in the country, especially amongst the returned soldiers. What are the reasons for that unrest? One great reason is that many of our men came back from the front in poor health with very little means of subsistence and since their return a great number of them have had to be supported by their relatives. They spent months and years in the trenches at a dollar and ten cents a day, whereas in this country lots of people have made millions of dollars. The war has impoverished manyand has enriched certain classes. What we need in this country is a large influx of immigrants, not artisans-immigrants who can engage successfully in the great industry of agriculture. These new comers should be drawn from the rural districts of the old country and not from the cities, of whose denizens we have had too many in past years.
What must be termed the great calamity of the present century is the ambition of some people to make too much money. We have been fighting for the cause of humanity and to ameliorate the condition of the smaller nations. To-day in Europe widows and orphans are stretching out their hands to the United States and Canada asking for bread and clothing. The currency of those countries has been so'much debased that it is worth very little at the present time, and thousands of these poor sufferers are actually in need of the necessities of life. It is really too bad when realizing how many thousands of men have been sacrificed in the recent great struggle that we are taking such little interest in their poverty-stricken families. Now that the war is over we must forget class feeling and antagonism and go to the rescue of the nations that are so greatly in need of assistance, especially those that we reckoned as our allies.
There is something wrong with our commercial system when it is possible for such great sufferings to occur without the means of redress. Foch has said that ' equality of gold should follow equality of blood," and in this sentiment I concur. It is rather amusing, Mr. Speaker, to hear some of the great financiers of this country calling upon the Government to cease borrowing money
-to hear them preaching economy and hard work by all classes. I remember not very long ago reading an expression of some such views by Sir Edmund Walker. I wonder if this is the same gentleman who advised the Government not to borrow money when we were buying the Canadian Northern railway. Lord Beaverbrook has called upon the women of the world to give up their gold in order to save the country. These also are noble sentiments. Are these people sincere? I hope they are, but they should at least be prepared to practise what they preach.
It is very timely to ask the question, what is wrong with the country? The more we inquire the more we learn that the National Policy of the present Government has not given satisfaction. There is unrest and dissatisfaction abroad, and an appeal to the country will permit of an unmistakable and unequivocal expression from the people. Therefore the amendment before the House is very timely. By appealing to the people we shall show our confidence in them and we must not fail to respect their views. The popular verdict will be for the advantage of Canada. The present Government seems to entertain a fear of the people at the present time, and does not want an appeal to the country. That in itself seems to suggest that there is something wrong. Let us appeal to the people at once. Let us ascertain what they think of the high cost of living, and whether they are not in favour of reducing the present high taxes on the necessities of life, the imposts on clothing, boots and shoes, farming implements and so forth.
In conclusion let me say that I shall vote for the amendment in the hope that by its means we shall be able to appeal to the people and ascertain what their views are on the vital questions of the day.


Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka):: I would like at the outset to join with other hon. gentlemen, even at the risk of being a little tiresome, in congratulating the mover (Mr. Cronyn) and the seconder (Mr. Mcgregor) of the Address upon their notable contributions to the debate. The effort of the mover was, I think, worthy of that great relative of his, who for so many years adorned the popular Chamber and whose voice was so successful in the past in shaping the policies of one of the great political parties. The hon. member for London (Mr. Cronyn), in moving the Address, brought to his task a great deal of ability, a great deal of study, and produced a finished effort creditable alike to him and to his great relative Hon. Edward Blake.

I would like also in passing to offer my congratulations to the leader of the Opposition who has this session for the first time taken the actual lead of his party. As that hon. gentleman looks back over the names of the illustrious men who have adorned the position he now occupies I hope that he may be stimulated to guide his party wisely, sanely, and well.
Before proceeding further I would like to associate myself with other hon. gentlemen in supporting the stand taken by the different members of the Government in opposing what is known as the Lenroot resolution in the American Congress. Canada has gone too far in its progress amongst the nations of the world to be content with a position restricted merely to the northern part of this continent, and before the present session prorogues I would like to see a resolution passed by the House backing up the Government's stand and insisting that Canada be given her full status as a nation of the British Empire.
I feel like apologizing to the House by entering upon the discussion of matters that more properly pertain to the Budget-


Michael Clark: Not at all.
Mr. PETER McGIBBON-but I agree with the member for Red Deer that the debate on the Address is the great " free for all " the great opportunity that members have of laying before the House, and consequently before the country, at the beginning of the session, their ideas, in order that the Government may shape its policy according to the wishes of the people. And it is for that reason and partly to correct some misstatements that have been made in this House that I ask you at this late hour to bear with me for a few minutes while I discuss matters which as I said, more properly belong to the Budget debate
Now, Mr. Speaker, a great deal has been said, and I think rightly said, in this debate about the exchange situation not only in Canada but throughout the world. It has been rightly said, I claim, because that is one of the disturbing influences in commerce to-day. I may say that I think the member for Marquette (Mr. 'Crerar) was a little bit hasty and, perhaps, a little bit sarcastic In telling the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that he did not know even the A.B.C. of the economic principles that govern these matters because that gentleman asked him a simple question or two. I was especially astonished a few minutes later when the hon. member for 
Marquette asked the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Meighen) a question which, to use an expression of his own, was simplicity itself. He asked the hon. minister to explain how it was that previous to 1911, when Canada had an adverse trade balance, her exchange was at par or nearly so-not knowing evidently, as he should have known, if he had gone at all into this question, that previously to that year Canada had been borrowing some five or six hundred million dollars a year from the Old Land.
What are the principles underlying the depression in exchange to-day? The first principle is, of course, the post-war conditions which have led to a heavy adverse balance of trade in many places; another, the abandonment of the gold redemption made necessary by the large issue of paper money; and a third, the diminution of the gold reserve, made necessary in many countries by the export of large quantities of specie. I might say, in passing, that I was rather surprised to hear the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) state that an adverse balance of trade of any kind had, in his opinion, very little to do with the exchange situation.


Michael Clark: Might I explain to my hon. friend that I ought perhaps to have been a little more explicit in my statement. I am sure that my hon. friend would not wish to misunderstand, and still less to misrepresent me. When I said that in my judgment there was little connection between the so-called adverse balance of trade and the adverse exchange rate,-1 meant, and I thought the House would understand me as meaning, that there was little connection as between cause and effect. My hon. friend is a medical man and knows the difference in disease between a cause and a symptom.
I meant there was little or no connection between them as related to cause and effect, and I thought I explained afterwards that they are both symptoms of a disease, the characterization of which I did not wish to attempt.


Peter McGibbon: I am sure,
Mr. Speaker, that I am the last one who would wish to misrepresent the hon. member for Red Deer. His statement was that before 1911 Great Britain always had an adverse balance of trade, that the British sovereign " spoke all languages," and that British credit was the highest in the world. My point is simply that had it not been for other conditions British exchange

would not have been at par. I am sure he will agree with me when I state that before 1911-and even now for that matter -Britain was the great carrying nation of the world, and it was the receipts from her great mercantile marine that helped to keep the British sovereign at its high point. Then may I remind him also that not only was Britain the great carrying nation of the world, but she was the great money market of the world, and the interest on her foreign loans was also a great factor in keeping British exchange from where it would have been had 3he relied only on her trade. Before the war Great Britain had no less than $19,000,000,000 loaned to other countries. When we conceive of the interest on that vast sum and take into consideration, as I said, the large receipts from her shipping, we have there the reason why the adverse balance of trade was offset and the British sovereign stood on the highest pinnacle of finance.
And I might just add this for the comfort of those who have any doubt as to the ultimate solution of this exchange question. Great Britain is still the great carrying nation of the world, and she is still, in spite of her external dents, the great money market of the world. The $19,000,000,000 that she had loaned to other countries before the war has been reduced, it is true, but it is still somewhere in the neighbourhood of $13,000,000,000, while her external debts are in the neighbourhood of $6,000,000,000, leaving a balance in her favour of about $8,000,000,000 in foreign lands. I am confident that in the near future British exchange is going to rapidly recover-in fact, it is rapidly recovering now, and I think inside of the next twelve months we will have an entirely different state of affairs as far as Great Britain is concerned, and possibly by that time the British sovereign will have regained its old place. Why do I say that, Mr. Speaker, I have already given you two reasons for the cause of the present exchange situation. A third reason, to my mind, will be the great tourist. traffic to see the battlefields, which will help to increase the value of the British sovereign.
Another factor is this, and it is of importance in its bearing not only on this country but on nearly every country with which Great Britain will do business, and what I say regarding Great Britain will apply in a more or less degree to Canada: At a word from the war office in 1914 the whole machinery of Great Britain was scrapped. What took its place? Instead of
machines requiring skilled mechanics behind them, the best brains of Great Britain were put to work to produce fool-proof machinery. They succeeded. They have also increased their army of working men by hundreds of thousands. These men have been taught to use the lathe, the micrometer and the gauge, and where before you had tens of thousands of skilled men you now have them in their hundred thousands. She has also greatly improved her ports and her railways-this affords me an opportunity of congratulating our Government on their shipbuilding programme and their amalgamation of our railways, because I think that policy is going to be a great factor in our national trade-I say that Great Britain has improved her ports, she has improved the calibre of her working men and of her machine shops, she is still the great money market of the world and the great carrying nation of the world; and when she gets through, as she will before very many more months, buying millions of dollars every day of food and materials from the American republic and paying for them in cash, not for herself but to turn over to the starving nations of Europe on credit, we will have a different condition in the exchange situation of the world. What applies to England will apply more or less to Canada. If the time comes in the near future when we can collect from Britain, the exchange situation so far as Canada and the United States are concerned will very rapidly improve. I say, therefore, that the time is coming when we shall not be able to buy cheaply from Great Britain and sell to advantage to United States, on account of the exchange rate.
I see difficulties and dangers for Canada as a result of this condition. The ex-Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) pointed out this afternoon what we all, of course, know, that the German mark has depreciated from about twenty-three cents down to about one cent. Only to-day or yesterday we have seen in the press a report to the effect that the Supreme Council of the Allies are arranging for a large industrial loan to put Germany on her feet. That loan is to have priority upon the assets that were to secure the liability of Germany to the Allied nations. When Germany gets established, if the exchange rate is anything like what it is now, I see difficulty in Canada's upholding her position in the commercial world. I was told last session-probably many of you have heard of the same thing-that a certain firm needed a certain kind of machinery

which in this country or in United States would cost $2,600. They bought it in Germany, paid the duty and practically had it set down in their work shops for $650. I make no comments upon the patriotism of that firm; they were probably doing good business. But I do say that the difficulty involved in the conditions respecting the exchange rate may be very hurtful to the industrial life of Canada.
The member for Marquette (Hon. Mr. Crerar) stated in so many words that what we called protection was a tax on the many for the benefit of the few. Mr. Speaker, I do not hold that opinion. A tax it may be, if you wish to call it so; but it is a tax to keep up the established industries of our country-industries which, as time has proved, are of great benefit to Canada. I do not think it is fair to repeat the assertion that moderate protection is a tax on the many for the benefit of the few. As the ex-Minister of Finance put it this afternoon, it is a machinery for developing our great industries and our great natural resources so that we can take the natural product worth one dollar, and, by the application of Canadian labour and Canadian skill, we can increase the value to three or four dollars, export the product and realize that increased value. I would like to see the products of our forests manufactured into lumber and pulp, a proper system of reforestation being carried on in the meantime. I would like to see a proper return obtained in Canada from our fisheries. I would like to see our wheat ground in this country so that the farmers could have the bran and shorts which they are so much
10 pm. in need of. I would like to see our minerals refined here; I would like to see Canada get the full benefit of her great natural resources. I am absolutely opposed to exporting our raw material to other countries. We have a very good example of the effect of that in Ontario. A few years ago American lumbermen would buy our logs, take them over to the other side and saw them there, the money being used to build up the American republic. What happened when that procedure was forbidden? The American mills moved over to this side; the work is done in Canada; the money is spent in Canada; Canada gets the benefit.
The member for Marquette went down to New Brunswick on the occasion of the last by-election there, and the press, reported him as having advocated the abolition of all duties. I do not know whether or not they reported him correctly. I put the question to him on the floor of the House

the other night and he said that if I would *wait I would get an answer. I have patiently waited for the answer. When he came to that part of his speech in which he dealt with the raising of the revenue he laid down two planks in his platform. First he said he would tax luxuries. Yes; so we all would. But are they not taxed now? Not enough, my hon. friend says? Then I say tax. them more; I would tax them to the highest possible degree. But I would remind my hon. friend that last year the value of luxuries that came into Canada was only $88,000,000; the revenue required if we do- away with the protective tariff is $170,000,000.
Then, my hon. friend said that he put on an income tax. Have we not an income tax now? Perhaps it is not producing enough money; I shall not quarrel with my hon. friend if it is simply a matter of administration. But if the rate is not high enough, why does my hon. friend not say how high he would put it? He was a member of this Government when these taxes were being imposed; did he ever oppose them as being too low? These, then, are the only two methods that he suggests of raising the $170,000,000 to take the place of the protective tariff. I shall refer later to what that would mean to the poor man of this country, to the working man, to every man. If there is one thing this Government and every Government have to do, it is to keep their hands off the farmer's means of living. He finds it hard enough to live as it is.
The member for Marquette also said-I think I am quoting him correctly; I would not like to do otherwise-that eighty per cent of our revenue was raised by taxation of foodstuffs. I am not just sure that he used the word " foodstuffs," but that is the meaning. I took out of what he said.


Michael Clark: For consumption.


Peter McGibbon: vinces there were no less than 100,000 automiles. If we value them at, say $1,000 apiece, we would have $100,000,000 invested in automobiles.
I do not think the provinces that can invest $100,000,000 in automobiles should grumble very much in post-war days at paying a few dollars duty on agricultural implements, when we have in Canada a population of 8,000,000 and a debt of two billion dollars. Suppose we take the hon. member at his word and wipe out all this duty and raise by direct taxation the $170,000,000 that we now raise by the tariff. I am interested more in the workingman than anybody else, and what would that mean for the workingmen of this country ? It would mean $21 per head, and taking the average family as five-husband, wife and three children-you would have a tax of $105 per family per year. Do you think such a tax should be placed on the workingmen of this country? I do not, Furthermore, when you take into account those who cannot pay, how large a tax would you have to impose on bus pt-opb who could pay?
Suppose you put a tax on farm lands. The farm lands of Canada, are valued at about $4,000,000,000. It would mean that we would have to impose a tax of 4i per cent on farm values, which on a farm worth $5,000, which is the average price set by the Soldier Settlement Board, would mean an annual tax of $225 on every farm. Are our friends willing to pay that?
Me have to have a policy in this country that will develop all our resources, so that we may stand as a unit before the world. While agriculture is the basic industry in Canada, it is not everything. I have in my hand statistics for 1919 of agricultural and manufacturing valuations. First, take agriculture. I find that the capital invested in land was $2,792,229,000; buildings, $927,548,000; implements, $387,079,000; and live stock, $1,102,261,000-or a total of $5,209,117,000. The total agricultural production that year was $1,546,541,000. It is something we should be proud of and should encourage in every possible way, but is not the only thing. Let me remind the House that 85 per cent of the production of our farms is consumed in Canada. Let us now look at the other side. The capital invested in the manufacturing plants of this country was as follows:	Land, buildings
and fixtures, $705,926,161; machinery and tools, $868,422,191; materials on hand, stocks in process, etc., $692,242,994; cash, trade and operation account, $520,058,381; or a

total of $2,786,649,727. Production was no less than $3,015,577,940, making a grand total of over $5,802,000,000. So there is not so very great difference between the two after all. Last year the manufacturers had in their employ 692,067 persons, and they paid out in wages, $553,301,675. Taking the agricultural population of this country as 40 per cent of the whole, and figuring out the male population', we see that there are not very many more people engaged in agriculture than in the manufacturing industries of this country.
I do not want to be misunderstood. I am in favour of doing everything that can be done to promote the great basic industry of agriculture in this country. I agree with the hon. member for Marquette that we have as yet only touched the fiinge. We have Over a billion 400. million acres of land in this country, over 30 per cent of which is supposed to ,be arable, and we have under cultivation only the comparatively small area of 53,000,000 acres. I should like to see the whole available area under cultivation, and our western provinces filled with population of the right kind. This question of population is one of the big problems before this country. I have said before in this House that I believed if we took down the barriers and allowed people to come into this country we could dbuble our population in a few years. I noticed the other day that the New York Herald stated that in the lifetime of people now living in Canada we would have a population of 50,000,000, and I do not think that estimate will be very, much out. I have given these figures to show the importance of these twin industries, as I might call them, and in the hope that we may look at these things from a broad standpoint, rather than from the standpoint of how any particular section or province will be affected. Let us consider the matter in a broad way and without regard to the effect our decision may have on our political future.
I want to refer for a moment to the Franchise Act. The member for Marquette said we must have an honest franchise and honest machinery to operate it. So say we all, but he spoiled it by saying a few moments, afterwards that he would give to Germans in Canada who had German brothers or other relatives fighting against us at the front the right to help determine the destinies of Canada even in the midst of a war. I want to register my most emphatic protest against any such proceeding. I am told by those who know that if the fran-

chise had been extended to these people in 1917, as the hon. member proposes should be done, he would not be representing the constituency of Marquette in this House to-day; I do not know whether that is true or not. I know that the principle this country has to stand for in the future is that of sound Canadianism. The people will not stand for anything else. They will not stand for politicians keeping their eyes on their own constituencies, and framing a franchise that will re-elect them to this TI< use to preside over the destinies of this country.
There is just one more thing and that is the amendment that is before the House. I do not have to tell this House, I hope, what I am going to do. I do not believe for one moment in the sincerity of this resolution. I do not believe that there are ten men outside of Quebec-no, nor five-who do. I ask the leader of the Opposition: Is he ready for an election in Ontario? What happened to his party in the last provincial election? What happened to the boast of the gentleman at present leading the Opposition in the province of Ontario who said he would put up a man against the Attorney General, the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier of the province? Ask the hon. member for .East Kent (Mr. McCoig) what happened when that leader turned up in that constituency for the purpose of putting a man in the field. The leader was told to go home and mind his own business. As everybody knows, the minister got his election by acclamation. Does the leader of the Opposition mean to tell me that his member from West Lambton, or Middlesex, or East Kent, where they were practically wiped out at the last election, is ready to go back and appeal to the people? He may say so, tout he does not mean it. Bad and all as the proposition is, I would have more respect for him but for his slander upon the health of the Prime Minister of Canada. What does he say? In effect this: We want to vote this Government out, but we will let them stay for a couple of months to pass a Franchise Bill. He knows, if he knows, anything, that inside of two months the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden) will be back in this House. Why could he not have withheld his resolution till the Prime Minister was here? Would not that be the honourable, gentlemanly and sportsmanlike thing to do? The Prime Minister, who broke himself down in the service of this country in the great war, is away now trying to regain his health, and they come along with a resolution to vote him out of
power. They 'ask this party to play the . traitor to their leader during his absence. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) never said a truer word than when, in his speech the other day, he said that Sir Robert Borden was as real a casualty of the war as if hg had served in the front line trenches. Yet they come along with a resolution to vote him out. If the leader of the Opposition had served in the trenches overseas with some of us, he would have known that it was not the custom of the Canadian boys to shoot down their leader who had been wounded on the field of battle.


Mr. JAMES McISAAC (Kings, P.E.I.):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I desire to make a few remarks on the question before the House. I shall endeavour to coniine myself reasonably close to the subject matter of this resolution. There are many questions of vast importance that could be discussed, and some of them have been discussed during the debate. I am sure there will be ample opportunity later on, when these different questions come up in their order, to give them ample consideration and discussion.
I wish even at this advanced stage of the debate to add my congratulations to those which have been so generously and deservedly accorded to the mover (Mr. Cronyn) and seconder (Mr. McGregor) of the Address before the House upon the admirable manner in which they have discharged the important duty resting upon them. I wish also to refer to that which constitutes the subject of the first paragraph in the speech from the Throne and to say a word, however humble, by way of congratulation to ourselves upon being able to assemble in these magnificent new Parliament Buildings. Buildings of this character constitute important elements in the history of every country and go far to afford some idea of the character of the people, their tastes and aspirations. This magnificent architectural pile, erected as the home of Canada's legislators, is destined in the ordinary course of events to continue for years to come, to pass down the ages and athwart the eenturids, standing as emblematic of Canada's greatness. The vast extent of this magnificent structure, its architectural beauty and symmetry surely go far to symbolize our greatness, the loftiness of our hopes and aspirations for Canada's important, honourable and distinguished place in the galaxy of nations. Here we might say that this magnificent, this beautiful architectural treasure crystallizes

the thought, the aspirations and the distinguished achievements of the great Canadian people. There is another thought that presents itself to me -which may not be inappropriately associated -with this subject, and it is that the rebuilding of this magnificent House of Parliament synchronizes, in greater part, with the heroic efforts of our soldiers abroad when they were writing glorious pages in the history of the Dominion and distinguishing themselves by their bravery, their prowess and sacrifices on behalf of Canada, the Empire and civilization.
The thought of war and the mention of battle suggests this other idea-that here, in this arena of the people, we strive one with another for the mastery, that we enter into combats not with mortal weapons but strive with intellectual rapiers, that one may win over the other. These struggles continuing down through the ages while the Parliament of Canada continues to meet and assemble in this stately building.
Having said so much by way of introduction I would like briefly to refer to some of the subjects touched upon in the speech from the Throne. So far as the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is concerned, the speech did not seem to please him at all. He considered that it did not contain sufficient matter; he thought it was very meagre and that it constituted "a poor bill of fare." If I might indulge in a play upon words I think it was "a pretty fair bill." However, from the very start the leader of the Opposition found fault that there was not enough of the legislation intended to be discussed during the present session foreshadowed in the speech from the Throne. If I remember rightly, and if my knowledge is sufficient, I think it is not customary in our day to anticipate very much of the legislation to be submitted to Parliament in the speech that is placed in the mouth of the representative of His Majesty, because from day to day the facilities exist for expeditiously and easily placing before Parliament and the public the matters that may be decided upon by the Government for legislative action during any particular session.* Therefore I do not think any serious complaint can be made on that particular score, and so the objection referred to is not very tenable or very well founded. The whole attitude of the leader of the Opposition, having reference to the subject matter of the speech and the course of the Government, was throughout one of dissatisfaction and fault finding. The hon. gentleman seemed to have drawn
[Mr. Mclsaac.1
his. inspiration from the sensational headings of articles in the newspapers and to have supplied what might therein be lacking by drawing upon his own lively imagination.
The hon. gentleman declared and repeated that the present administration led by Sir Robert Borden was unpopular and it was therefore time that it should resign. Let me discuss that point for a moment. The word "popular" has a variety of meanings and I think that perhaps, using the term in its best sense, it will be found on analysis and on investigation that the present Government is a most popular one. This is a Government that did things not only during the war but in peace times. It has been, and is still, engaged in great projects that tend to promote the national interests regardless of whether they may be popular or not. The carrying on of war, I think all will agree, is not a very popular undertaking. When Canada became involved in war and when it became necessary to do everything that was possible to draw upon the resources of the country and to strain every nerve to see that our share in the struggle should be in the highest degree successful it was altogether likely that the Government would be obliged to do a great many things that the leader of the Opposition and a great many other persons would not regard as popular. But the measures adopted by the Government were for the national interests, were for the maintenance of our liberty, were for the safety of our country and our Empire, and generally speaking, for the preservation of civilization. In order that our share in the struggle should be as full, comprehensive and successful as it was possible to be, the Government of Canada, under the leadership of Sir Robert Borden did everything that could be done, and they succeeded to an eminent degree in their undertakings.
It seemed to me that in the course of his address the leader of the Opposition scarcely mentioned the word "war." One would almost think from hearing his speech that there had been no war at all within the last few years. Certainly one would scarcely gather from what the hon. gentleman said that there had been anything of the kind. I do not know exactly what the hon. gentleman's attitude toward the war was. For all I know it may have been one of benevolent or inocuous neutrality. There was nothing it his speech to indicate that he was at all deeply interested in the triumphant outcome of the war, and that he would be willing to make any sacrifices or to put forth

any extraordinary exertions in order that Canada's efforts might be successful.
The leader of the Opposition in his references to the Prime Minister seemed to consider that the latter should be here under all circumstances and at all times. I do not think such an argument is a very forcible or substantial one. If we consider the Imperial Parliament we all know that the British Premier, the Right Hon. Lloyd George is very frequently absent from the House at Westminster; and in the case of the leader of this Government there are ample reasons for his absence from this Chamber. Every one knows that the arduous labours of the Prime Minister, his extraordinary exertions, his long continued vigilance and his anxiety during the prosecution of the war that it might have a successful outcome and that Canada might succeed in all she had therein undertaken, as well as the important legislation that was rendered necessary after the war closed, broke down Sir Robert Borden's health, and he was obliged to seek in another climate the renewal of his strength and the regaining of his shattered health. Surely no one would be so ungenerous as not to afford the right hon. gentleman such respite as might be necessary in order to enable him to regain his health. I would like, for a moment, to point out that even some hon. gentlemen who have stated that they intend to vote in favour of the amendment of the leader of the Opposition have been sufficiently generous to accord the Prime Minister his due meed of praise for the most important part which he has played in the administration of the affairs of the country during the last five years.
I will quote first from the remarks of the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) which will be found on page 151 of unrevised Hansard, where he says:
I wish here and now simply to bear testimony to this fact that the Prime Minister of this country carried a burden which very few citizens of Canada appreciated, and discharged the most onerous tasks with a conscientiousness and sense of duty that certainly challenged the respect of those who were intimately associated with him.
Notwithstanding that the hon. member for Marquette intends to support the leader of the Opposition on this amendment, he is sufficiently fair minded, generous and truthful to make that declaration regarding the leader of the Government.
The bon. leader of -the Opposition in the course of his speech said that 'this Government had no policy, and that it had no leader, and then in the next breath he
said that it had three leaders. Let us take up the matter of policy and of leadership. Wha't is the policy of the Government regarding the carrying on of our national affairs, and what is their position regarding the leadership? Not so long ago there was a locum-tenens in the leadership of the Opposition, -and the real leader when he took his s-eat last session was a kind of supernumerary, so that we had the spectacle of the acting leader of the Opposition and his chief of staff conducting the business. I think we have a somewhat parallel case just now, There is the leader, then he has his chief o.f staff on his left, and 'he who was the acting leader is now relegated to third place, and I think, if I am sufficiently familiar with .mili tary terms, he fills the place of what -might be called an adjutant or helper. Therefore we have the leader, the chief of staff and the helper -a delectable trinity to be sure1
Now, Mr. Speaker, -we have the hon. leader of -the Opposition concluding his speech by moving an amendment to the Address. It is quite proper and perhaps not unusual to move such an amendment, but it appears to me th-at an amendment of this nature surely should have some semblance of being based on a question of public policy. Wha-t is the public policy upon Which this amendment is based? As the hon. member for Red Deer expressed it, it is made up largely of preamble. Well, Sir, preamble is not a very important question of policy. Then after all this preamble it winds up by s-aying:
The regrettable protracted absence of tbe Prime Minister, the widely accepted belief that it is not his intention to return to the duties of his officeand so on make it necessary that this Parliament -should be dissolved and a new Parliament summoned. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman was. warranted in saying that he -did not expect the Prime Minister might return to his duties. But of course that is in line with most of his -expressions of thought throughout his speech, which is largely based on rumour, imagination and speculation. But w-e have had the very comforting intelligence communicated to us within the last few days that the right hon. Sir Robert Borden, barring unforeseen contingencies, will he back in thi-s House before the session closes, in goo-d health and ready -to resume his leadership of the Government.
I would like also to refer to some remarks on this -amendment by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who is distinctly

understood to be a leading member of the new party and who has expressed his intention to vote for the amendment. However, the hon. member is sufficiently generous to accord a meed of praise to the right boon, the leader of the Government. At page 177 of unx-evised Hansard he says:
I do not quite see the force of all the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in supporting this amendment. Naturally, the speech partook of the nature of what I have ventured to call a preamble. Amongst other things he charged the Government with having no policy.
Further on he says:
I did not, however, quite understand how my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition could be so light-hearted in charging the Government with having no policy, unless indeed he had gone on to tell what his own policy was.
, The member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Levi Thomson) at page 189, adds his tribute of praise to the Prime Minister and expresses regret at .his absence. He says:
I am willing to give the Government credit for -everything it has done, especially during the war, and am not inclined to condemn it for all its acts since the war terminated, because I recognize it has had to deal with exceedingly complex problems. The Government is now treading new and unbroken ground and its position is very difficult, very much more difficult than any previous Government in Canada has had to face.
These are the tributes of respect and appreciation that are accorded to the Government by the members of the third party, who intend to vote with the leader of the Opposition on the proposed amendment.
I should like to refer for a moment to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Breton North -and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie). As he delivered his speech (he seemed to be lighthearted-in the very best of humour. It was a very moderate speech-moderate for him. It abounded in generalities. After listening to 'him and subsequently reading 'his speech I said to myself: 'Surely this is a very light performance for an hon. gentleman who occupied such an important position in the councils of his party, although now somewhat degraded from the high office that he held a year ago. I would go further; I would be disposed to regard his speech as a collection of political puerilities. I do not think -that many sentences in it were worthy of being embalmed in Hansard. I noticed particularly that the hon. gentleman did not indulge in so many scriptural quotations as was his wont some time ago. I think he might, had he searched the scriptures, have found something that would fit
(Mr. Mclsaac.]
right into his position -at the present time. He might have found something like this: "Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled." He might have found other texts that would be equally applicable. Although the hon. gentleman seemed so light and airy when he was delivering his remarkable speech, perhaps he was not in as good spirits as lie would like to have us understand or believe. Perhaps in the secrecy of his chamber 'he was lamenting in sackcloth and ashes and quoting those words of the great dramatist which were put in the mouth of a really great man: " Farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness ! " After listening to bis speech I could easily understand why it was that, if I may be permitted to paraphrase the words of the wizard of the North,-
-from his feeble hand
Pell the 'borrowed truncheon of command.
There are several other matters to which I might refer, Mr. Speaker, but the night is somewhat advanced and I do not desire to trespass any further upon the patience of the House. I may say, in conclusion,

although it is, perhaps, not necessary for me to say it-that -it will afford me great pleasure to vote against the amendment submitted by the leader of the Opposition.


Mr. WALTER DAVY COWAN (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, I promise you, my remarks will be very brief. I intend to vote against the amendment submitted by the leader of the Opposition (Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King), and to support the motion for the adoption of the address in reply to the speech from the Throne. I offer no excuse whatever for the course that I intend to pursue, in fact, I would have to offer an excuse to myself if I did not take that course. Why should I vote to turn the Government out of office?
The member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) made a statement this afternoon which was sufficiently important to be noted throughout the whole of the country. He said that no charge of corruption had been levelled against the present Government. In our -section of the country, Mr. Speaker, the people demand ability on the part of their representatives and strict attention to business; but above all they demand honour, *honesty and integrity, and these are things that we have found in the present Government. I have given some attention to political matters in days gone by, and I cannot recall an election fought at any time in ,connection with which charges of some kind were not made against the party in

power, whether it were Grit or Tory. 1 do not say whether or not the charges were true, but this much I will say: that while the Opposition-that is, the direct Opposition-has opposed almost everything that the Government has submitted to the House, there has not been even a whisper against the honour, the honesty and the integrity of the members of this Government. That is one reason why I think the Government should remain in power. When I get a man who is naturally honest I want to keep him as long as I can.
Upon what policy has it been suggested by the Opposition or by the cross-benchers that we should appeal to the country? None that I know of. The only reason given is -that we should appeal to the democracy oi Canada. Well, Sir, it seems to me that this term "democracy" is being horribly overworked in these days. I recall that in the election of 1911 the members of the Tory party to which I belonged

and I offer no excuses for belonging to it; I am not ashamed of the Tory party-were charged with rolling , the Union Jack around themselves and making patriots of themselves. The Opposition at that time said, and 1 rather agreed with them, that they did not have to get out on the housetops and holler out their patriotism; that they were patriotic and everybody knew it. I sometimes felt that they were right. I knew that I was a sufficiently good British subject and that 1 did not consider it necessary to inform people of that fact. Well, these very same-gentlemen who told us at that time that they did not have to. get out and holler their patriotism from the housetops are to-day shouting from the same housetops that they are democrats. I am sufficiently a democrat and sufficiently a believer in democracy to make it unnecessary for me to tell it to anybody. One of the reasons why I intend to support this Government is because in my humble opinion every piece of legislation that they have submitted to this House, without a single exception, has been democratic and in the interests of the common people of Canada.
At this late hour I will not go over the list. I am sorry that the hon.. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) is not in his seat, because he comes with the latest expression of opinion from the people of western Canada, his constituency adjoining mine. I should like to know what he has brought back as an expression of opinion from the common, ordinary people of western Canada, a very democratic people, in regard to legislation which has been sub-15
mitted to this House by the Government and which has been passed. Let me take for instance the question of woman suffrage. Was that a democratic measure? Was it a thing you would expect from an autocratic government? Autocratic, hon. members opposite call it, because, they say, it has made most of its legislation by orders- in council. Just in parenthesis, let me say, in the language, I think, of an American, that sometimes we have to enthrone autocracy temporarily in order to save democracy, and that was the case while the war was on. During that period [DOT]we were all willing to forgive a certain amount of autocracy. But to come back to the point I was making, let me ask whether the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould)-and the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) was in the West at that time and he can correct me if I am wrong-appealed to the electors of Assiniboia for election in opposition to that domocratic measure, namely, woman suffrage? Not a bit of it. He knew better than to attempt to do so. He knew very well that the people were behind the Government in passing that Bill. And the same is true in regard to the Representation Act. At the time of that election this Parliament had before it the Grand Trunk Acquisition Bill. Was that a democratic measure? Was that in the interest of the Canadian people, to take from those who are generally classed as capitalists, and moneyed people, the control of one of the great railway systems of Canada and to vest it in the hands of the common people? Did the hon. member for Assiniboia in that constituency oppose the action of this Government on that particular occasion? I should like to see him or any other person dare to go out into any constituency in western Canada and oppose the Government on that Bill. Similarly, every other Bill that has been brought in by this Government and passed could have been fought out in that constituency. Was it? Never a particle of opposition-


An hon. MEMBER:: Prohibition.


Walter Davy Cowan: You could not take a jug of whiskey into Assiniboia at all. I know that constituency sufficiently well to know that. The people would not have anything to do with it. I will only say that the hon. member for Assiniboia was not elected by whiskey, and if he had opposed the passing of the legislation which we did pass, he would never have been here. What then is the ground upon which-and to-



night I am speaking chiefly to those crossbenchers from the province of Saskatchewan who have seen fit to leave this side and to ,go over there-they are opposing the present Government? There is only one question upon which there is any difference, and that is the question of the tariff, and I cannot understand the hon. gentlemen , taking the position they do take when they do not know what is the policy of the Government which will be submitted to this Parliament on the question of the tariff. Had they waited until after that policy was announced, I could have understood their opposition to a course with which they did not agree. But to take opposition before the Government's policy was announced, on the only question on which there is any difference at all, is quite beyond my comprehension. On the question of the tariff, what is the difference? Free trade against protection? Oh, no. Why, even the leader of the cross-benchers says that he would not enact free trade at one fell swoop. Therefore, according to his own admission, free trade is an utter impossibility for this session or for this Parliament. If he means-and I think this is probably what he has in mind-that five, ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years from now free trade may be a good policy for this country, then all I can say is that we have no mortgage on brains and ability, and hon. members who come here five, ten, fifteen, twenty or thirty years from now will be quite able to govern this country without cur present assistance, and we can leave the future in their hands. What is the sense of speaking about a policy that we cannot enact and which my hon. friends admit we cannot enact at the present time? The only thing, therefore, that is left to us is a possible revision of the tariff, and I think everybody on this side of the House is agreed, because the Minister of Finance at last session announced as a policy of the Government that a revision of the tariff should be made at the earliest possible date, admitting, of course, that such abnormal conditions exist throughout the world at present that a satisfactory revision, one that would endure for any length of time, is quite out of the question. In parenthesis, however, speaking about free trade, let me note what the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. M. Clark) said in this House yesterday. To me, if I were a free trader, it would come as a body blow. The hon. member is probably the most consistent advocate of free trade we have in this House and, per-
haps, in Canada. I like to listen to a man who believes in any policy, persistently advocating it, as he certainly does. He has a knowledge, which I wish 1 had of the question, but what did he tell us? I p to the present time he has been under the necessity of defending free trade; he believes in it and he has defended it consistently and persistently. But yesterday he was under an entirely different necessity; he had to prove that the adverse balance of trade is not responsible for the adverse exchange. What did he tell us? Why, he said if it were responsible for the adverse exchange, Great Britain long ago would have had an adverse exchange, because the balance of trade has been against Great Britain all these years. So, what free trade produces, is, according to Iris own: admission, an adverse balance of trade.. Just the day before an. hon. member, I do-not remember who, spoke of agricultural conditions in Great Britain under free trade, and he told us that thousands of acres of land had gone out of cultivation and required the stimulus of the war to bring them back to cultivation. Free trade giving us an adverse balance of trade! Free trade giving us depressed agriculture! For goodness sake, who has benefited in Great Britain from free trade? Are these the conditions the hon. gentleman wishes to have imported into this country for us to apply here? An adverse balance of trade and agriculture ruined ! I hope not. But [DOT]that is just in parenthesis. The hon. gentleman made the statement in order to prove that an adverse balance of trade does not produce adverse exchange.


Michael Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must rise to a point of order. My hon. friend is not quoting me correctly. I said, a so-called adverse balance of trade. I never for a moment admitted that the adverse balance of trade, so-called, was really adverse to Great Britain.


Walter Davy Cowan: The hon. member, however, admitted that there was an adverse balance-of trade in Great Britain, and I think statistics prove that he is correct. Let me point this out to the hon. member, that all these years Great Britain has been building up a great monetary system until to-day she is-and she has been for years-the money market of the world, the result being that the wealthy people of Great Britain have their money invested in all parts of the world. Before the war, practically the whole national debt of Canada was carried by the moneyed men of Great Britain as-

were also the provincial and municipal debts, all our debentures being sold in Great Britain, and the same may be said of the United States, billions of pounds being invested in that country as in every other country in the world. But, while the adverse balance of trade existed, the interest earned was pouring into Great Britain in great streams and, in that way, counterbalancing the adverse balance of trade The result was, as the hon. gentleman said, that "the sovereign spoke in all languages." That proves to me, and to every one I should think, that if we are going to exist as a nation we must produce those things that will make us, as far as possible, a selfsustained nation. That leads me to this conclusion, that it is up to us in Western Canada, instead of always cursing the financial interests and our system of protection, to turn in and take advantage of the privileges which are accorded to us under that system. If we develop the industrial resources of Western Canada, as I think we should, far more than we have ever done in the past-and I am certain we can do it-we shall be able to meet ^many of the objections which hon. gentlemen on the cross benches are urging. ,
Is the tariff responsible for all of the troubles we have in Canada to-dayP Is it entirely responsible for the high cost of everything in this country to-day? If it is -then I for one would say, let us wipe it out, because the cost of living in Canada today is exceedingly burdensome. It is the one great problem this Government ought to tackle just as quickly as it can, and through whatever medium it can. Let us take two or three articles for the sake of illustration. Western Canada is suffering most acutely from the excessive cost of lumber. In the little city of Regina, which is the most progressive city in Canada today, we shall spend in building this year $5,000,000. If the price of lumber were reasonable I believe we would exceed that by another $5,000,000. Our building operations will be limited solely by the price and supply of lumber. The cost is almost prohibitive to-day. Is the tariff responsible for that? Does the tariff come into it at all? As a matter of fact, lumber is free; it is only dressed lumber that is taxed. Is lumber coming into Canada or going out of it? There is no question at all that the export of lumber from Canada to-day is the cause of the high prices. Why then keep up this everlasting cursing of the tariff? Why not let us unite our efforts in discovering the cause of these high prices? If it is the 151
tariff then let us apply the remedy, but if it is not, there is no use concentrating our efforts on the tariff alone and leaving the real pauses untouched, because that will only mean we will continue to suffer. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) would not treat a case of the flu by vaccinating for smallpox, but that is about what he proposes to do here. They are cursing the tariff and ignoring other causes of high prices. The consequence is that high prices continue to exist longer than they otherwise would. Anthracite coal is absolutely free. Before the war we could buy it in our part of the country at $10 a ton, but to-day we are paying $22, and according to Government analysis thirty per cent of it is ash and fifty per cent rock, which means we are really paying from $50 to $60 a ton for coal. Is the tariff responsible for that? Most undoubtedly it cannot be. So I say we should not concentrate our attention entirely on the tariff, leading our people to denounce it as if it were the only cause of high prices in this country to-day, and leaving all the other causes untouched. I say if we do, we are the worst enemies of our people. My suggestion is that we make an inquiry into the operation of the tariff as quickly as we can, and wherever it is-found to be responsible for high prices, let-us apply the necessary remedy as sooh as-we can. If it is not the tariff, let us find a remedy as quickly as we can from whatever source we can. In that way we shall better be able to overcome the present difficult situation.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say that there is disunion or disorganization in the Unionist ranks. I suppose it is possible that if you used a microscope you could find some sign of it, but I have been too busy performing the duties I am sent here to perform to notice anything of it. I believe in supporting constituted authority until they show some reason why I should not. Have we any evidence o'f union directly opposite on this fiscal policy, which is the only thing that might separate us on this side of the House? I have not seen any. Are the cross-benchers united in their policy? I have not seen any evidence of it at all. In fact, it is the very opposite. Only the other day their leader got up and advocated an income tax. He did the same thing in our little city when he was holding a public meeting there. I think he was hardly fair in the manner in which he advocated it in our part of the country and in the House, in that he compared the amounts raised by Great Britain and New Zealand by income

taxation with the results obtained in Canada, but he failed to tell his audience in Regina that in New Zealand there is only one Government that levies all taxes. There is no taxation field there pre-empted by provincial governments, whereas in Canada there are at least ten governments all having the right to levy income tax. My opinion is that the federal government, by reason of the fact that by common consent we have given to the provinces the right to levy income taxation, will be limited in its income tax possibilities to the residue left by the highest taxing province in Canada, because you have to make your income tax equitable throughout the Dominion, and if British Columbia has a high income tax for provincial purposes and gives to the municipalities the right to levy income tax, which tax the nlunici-palities do levy, you have there two bodies levying income tax, and soon you reach the point where there is no income left to tax.
I think the Minister of Finance will agree with me on that. So our revenue possibilities in that direction are exceedingly limited. Immediately after his leader had advocated income taxation, the hon. member for Saltcoats (Mr. MacNutt) said he objected to income taxation and did not want any income tax imposed on the farmers. Is that an evidence of union? What is going to happen when the whip of the cross-benchers whips in the hon. member for Saltcoats to assist his leader on the question of income tax? What is going to happen when he starts whipping himself in to support his leader? I should like to know.
Again, the leader of the cross-benchers strongly supports a tax on unimproved lands. Just what he means by " unimproved lands " I do not know. Are they lands that are not in any sense cultivated? Or is he advocating a tax on all lands according to the value of the unimproved land? I could not gather from his remarks just what he meant. The hon. member for Saltcoats conies along and says he wants a tax on improved lands. Now who is going to run that party? Where are the farmers going to get off at? If the leader means unimproved lands, I would also ask where they are situated. In the province of Ontario there are mighty few unimproved lands except those owned by the Crown, in right of the province, and is the Crown as represented by the Dominion going to levy a tax on the Crown as represented by the province? And it is the same in Quebec and all the other provinces except
{Mr. Cowan.]
Saskatchewan and Alberta. Under the policy of the leader of the cross-benchers, who is supposed to represent the western people, the lands of Western Canada are going to be taxed for the whole Dominion. That is a nice policy upon which to appeal to the people of Western Canada. I hope he comes along with that policy any old time. The hon. member for Saltcoats wants a tax on improved lands. That might apply more equitably at the present time, but let me draw his attention to the fact that the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta have a far greater area of arable land than any other province, and it is only going to be a question of ten or fifteen years before Western Canada, if my hon. friend's policy is followed, will be paying an outrageous portion of the taxes of this Dominion. Is that a policy that would appeal to Western Canada. Not much. It does not appeal to me. I want to look a little bit ahead, and the rest of Canada must pay their share of taxation if I have anything to say in the matter. So the union they have over there is not alluring to me, not a bit:
' There is one other point, and the leader of the Opposition will kindly take note of this. He and his whole party have beep condemning the War-time Elections Act. Why? Because it disfranchised a certain number of foreigners who had become Canadian citizens. We have another Franchise Act coming on; we must have it. If I interpret this amendment aright, he is going to disfranchise as many women as we disfranchised men under the War-times Elections Act. We are not going to naturalize people in Canada in the way we did in days gone by. I know what it was in our part of the world, because I helped to do it. At election time Grit's and Tories alike both did it. They would say: "You vote for us and we will naturalize you." It cost us $1 apiece. I helped to do lots of it. But that day has gone by, and it has got down to the time when people have to be real British subjects in spirit before they will be naturalized in Canada. I take it that under any franchise Act which we are likely to enact any man or woman who is a British subject, or who can become a British subject within the period necessary, and can qualify, will have the right to vote. But they will have to be naturalized in their own personal right. I approve of that, and I think the great bulk of the people of Canada approve it. I believe that will be the policy which will be followed by this Parliament; I cannot conceive of any other.

We have in Western Canada some thousands of women who have been here for some ten, fifteen or twenty years, who have proved themselves loyal though of foreign extraction, and who have never been naturalized in their own personal right. They will have to be naturalized in their own personal right, to my way of thinking, before they will be able to vote. How long is that going to take? Can they be naturalized within the period of time specified within the amendment submitted by the leader of the Opposition? It cannot be done. In Saskatchewan alone we have probably 300,000 foreigners, and the courts of Canada are going to take their time to see that every person who applies for naturalization has the necessary qualifications. It cannot be done in less than a year's time and do justice to Canada and its people. A lot of these people do not know yet, and cannot possibly know until the Franchise Act is passed, that they will have a vote. They will then have to go to the courts to be naturalized. But by that time the election, if held as proposed, would be over and these people would be left without votes in that election. And there are some, I am sure, who should have the right to vote, because I know many of them and, while they are foreigners, they will make good British subjects. On the other hand, there are many who have not proved themselves sufficiently British in spirit to entitle them to vote. It is absolutely necessary, if we are to carry out the principle of an honest and just Franchise Act, that the elections should not be held for at least one year to come.
Just a word about the Board of Commerce and I am through. The high cost of living is the big trouble to-day. It is the one thing that the people are up in arms about, and I do not wonder at it in some cases because it is a real hardship to those who have been living on salaries, those who have retired on what they thought was a competency or thoise who held bonds other than industrial bonds. These people are suffering very keenly. The Board of Commerce was appointed to meet a popular demand-there is no question about that. It was appointed because the Government recognized that something should be done to try and lower the cost of living and to stop profiteering. J am satisfied that the Board of Commerce has already accomplished satisfactory work and that a great deal of benefit has resulted to Canada. If the Board of Commerce has not succeeded under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Robson in accomplishing what we all desire, it could not be accomplished by anybody in Canada. I know Mr. Hugh Robson, as I call him. He is a rank Liberal and always was before he was appointed, and that is why I know him so well. He and I fought each other on many platforms in Regina. I know him to be a thoroughly honest man. He is one of the best citizens that Regina ever turned out. He has ability, and, as I say, if he could not accomplish what we desire in this matter of prices, it could not be done. But the fact that he has resigned should not deter the Government from continuing the work which they have started, and which, if carried out, should be a benefit to this country. We should continue the Board, or if not that board, one similarly constituted, and if Mr. Justice Robson, in his letter of resignation, has indicated to the Government that there are defects in the law, it is our duty to remedy those defects as quickly as possible. We should study his report and see where the defects actually exist and remedy them so that we can meet, somehow or other, the conditions which exist at the present time in Canada and which are affecting so keenly the comfort and happiness of our people. I am going to vote against this amendment because the Government deserves something from this country, it deserves the support which all loyal subjects can give to it.
On motion of Mr. Robb the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Doherty, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, March 9, 1920.